Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Aberdare Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Fleetwood Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

West Cheshire Water Board Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CURRENCY.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in spite of the amount of deflation in the Indian currency of approximately £10,000,000 from 31st March to 15th June 1927, he can state the estimated amount it will still be necessary to deflate in the next three months so that the market rate of exchange will be nearer the official rate?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No, Sir. The action of the currency authority in regard to expansion or contraction of the currency depends in India, as elsewhere, on developments that cannot be predicted. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that there will necessarily be any further contraction of currency in India during the next three months.

Sir F. WISE: Does my Noble Friend realise that the market rate has not reached the official rate up to the present time?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir.

SUGAR INDUSTRY (RESEARCH).

Mr. KELLY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is
aware that in 1925–26 India imported 738,224 tons of refined sugar as against 670,965 tons in the preceding year; and whether it is proposed to set up a sugar research institute with a view to expanding the production and refining of sugar in India in order to make India self-supporting in this direction?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A scheme for the establishment of a sugar research institute was laid before the Government of India some years ago. The Government of India intimated last year that they did not know when they would be in a position to give effect to the scheme, which involved a heavy outlay.

Mr. KELLY: Is the Department here in touch with India, to see whether this matter is being proceeded with, even in face of the heavy outlay?

Earl WINTERTON: That is really a matter for the Government of India. The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that a great deal is being done now to increase the production of sugar in India, and also to improve the quality of the sugar grown.

BUNGALOWS, MANDAPAM HEALTH RESORT (INDIANS).

Mr. KELLY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. V. S. Subramaniya Iyer was at the Mandapam health resort refused permission by the station master to occupy part of one of the two bungalaws at that place, in spite of the fact that advertisements were displayed asking the public to travel to that health centre at cheap return rates; that Mr. Iyer was informed that the bungalows were meant only for Europeans and Americans and were not available for Indians; and whether any steps are being taken, or are contemplated, to deal with this racial discrimination?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information as to the occurrence of any such incident.

Mr. KELLY: Will the Noble Lord make some inquiry regarding this discrimination?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; it is not a matter for the Secretary of State, but is purely a matter, if it occurs, for the local authorities.

DETENUS, BENGAL.

Mr. THURTLE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his Department is in possession of the name of the terrorist organisation with which the prisoners detained under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance Act and Regulation 111 of 1818 are said to have been connected?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bengal Gaols Inquiry Committee recommended that the political prisoners should be removed from gaols altogether; and whether it is proposed that separate gaols should be constructed for them, or what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: The Committee recommended, from the point of view of their inquiry, that detenus should be removed from gaols altogether, though they specified other alternative arrangements. The interval since their Report was made has been too short to enable me to say what action is proposed to be taken.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my Noble Friend aware that in the same Report it is stated that these political prisoners are allowed to play badminton and tennis, and enjoy amenities that are not granted to other prisoners, and has not such special treatment a very demoralising effect on the other prisoners?

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that the Committee reported that the conditions under which these detenus are kept in ordinary gaols are demoralising to the other prisoners, and for that reason they recommended that they should be removed elsewhere.

PORT TRUST SERVICE.

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to carry out the resolution moved in the Council of State in 1922 by Sir P. C. Sethna, and accepted by the
Government of India, regarding the Indianisation of the higher grades of the Port Trust Service?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no information on the subject.

ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, MADRAS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to abolish the Army clothing department at Madras and to hand the work over to private contractors; and whether he will ascertain the reason for the wholesale dismissals from that department at the beginning of June?

Earl WINTERTON: The Administration Report of the Ordnance and Clothing Factories for 1924–1925 contained a recommendation that the clothing factory at Madras should be closed. I am not aware that wholesale dismissals have taken place, but if the hon. Member wishes I will make inquiry.

POSTAL SERVICES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give particulars of the representations made to the Government of India by the All-India Postal Union, Madras Circle; whether he will state the present starting pay of postmen, overseers, sorters, head postmen, and departmental branch postmasters, and the leave and pension rules applicable to the men in the lower grades of the postal services; and whether the Government of India intend to introduce a uniform scale of pay for postmen for the whole of India, and Burma, with suitable local allowances?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. The conditions of service of these grades are within the discretion of the Government of India, and my Noble Friend is not disposed to call for any report on the matter from them.

INDIA HOUSE, LONDON.

Colonel DAY: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when it is anticipated that the new India, House in London will be completed?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 9th May to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).

Colonel DAY: Has work been started on this building?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member asks in his question when the work will be finished. That question I answered on the 9th May.

Colonel DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether work has been started?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question as to that.

MERCANTILE MARINE.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the desire in India for the creation of an Indian Mercantile Marine; whether the Government of India and the Secretary of State have considered the Report of the Mercantile Marine Committee; and whether it is proposed to take any action on that Report?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. It has been decided to establish a training ship at Karachi. The training ship is expected to be in working order in September next.

FOREST DEPARTMENT.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the net profits from the working of forest departments in India in 1924–25 was Rs.21,400,000, showing a yield from forests of about 2 annas per acre; that about one-fifth of British India, approximating to 250,000 square miles, is covered by forests, but of this only about 100,000 square miles are under intensive management; that it has been calculated that if by proper development the yield was increased, as it can be to Rs.3 per acre the total income would amount to about Rs.400,000,000 per annum; and, in view of the fact that, with the exception of Bombay and Burma, forests are a reserved subject, any steps are being taken, or are proposed to be taken, to develop this source of income for India?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The calculation in the third part of the question has been brought to my notice before. The steps that have been and are being taken to develop this
source of revenue for India are described on pages 261 to 265 of the Report on the Moral and Material Progress of India during 1925–26. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the progress in forest development is necessarily slow and the authorities who look forward to a revenue of Rs.400,000,000 no doubt recognise that many years' work will be required before this result can be attained. The revenue has nearly doubled since 1913–14.

KHYBER PASS (TRIBAL UNREST).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make regarding the unrest in the Khyber Pass district?

Earl WINTERTON: The only tribal unrest in the neighbourhood of the Khyber Pass calling for any special notice recently has been in the Mohmand country, where early in June a force of hostile Mohmands attacked clans friendly to Government and threatened an incursion into British India. The Government of India took defensive measures in the shape of bombing operations, which were entirely successful in dispersing the hostile tribesmen, and it was reported a day or two later that the situation was now practically normal. No importance other than local is attached to the disturbances.

CROWN COLONIES (COMMERCIAL AVIATION).

Mr. HAYDAY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what concession has been granted to private companies to operate commercial aircraft in the Crown Colonies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No private company has at present any concession for operating commercial aircraft in any non-self-governing Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (GRANTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum has been allotted from the £1,000,000 grant to the Empire Marketing Board to the marketing of British barley?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No grant has been specifically made in regard to the marketing of British barley, but I am informed that the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is conducting an investigation into the marketing of cereals, as part of the work now being carried out with the aid of the grant of £40,000 a year which has been made to the Ministry by the Empire Marketing Board.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British grower of barley is the hardest hit of almost any arable producer, and will he do what he can to assist him to find fresh markets, if possible?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question of that kind to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries it will be easier. The Marketing Board only make grants when the matter is put up to them through the appropriate Department. Any case for the improvement of the marketing of a particular home product would come to us through the Ministry of Agriculture.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it the policy of the Board to make specific grants for specific commodities, or is it merely general?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In the main, it is general.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in connection with the grant of £1,000,000 to the Empire Marketing Board, what sum has been allocated to protect the interests of home producers in England and the direction in which this sum is being spent; and how much money has been allocated for the assistance or fostering of British deep-sea fishing?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A grant of £40,000 per annum has been made available from the Empire Marketing Fund for the improvement and development of the marketing of home agricultural products in England and Wales. This grant is being administered on behalf of the Board by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Ministry's programme of work includes the investigation of marketing conditions, the publication of reports on marketing, and the practical
demonstration of improved methods of packing, grading, etc. Demonstrations on these lines are being given in the present summer at a number of agricultural shows in various parts of the country. The Ministry has also made grants for such purposes as the standardisation of cheese and the development of grading and packing stations for fruit and vegetables. With regard to the last part of the question, the Board has undertaken to contribute a sum not exceeding £1,500 during the current year towards the cost of experiments carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into the long-distance transport of fish. The Imperial Economic Committee is at present investigating fishery problems, and the Board awaits the issue of its Report and recommendations before making any further grants.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that £1,500 is a suitable amount, out of £1,000,000, for one of our great industries, namely, deep-sea fishing?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh no, I do not wish to be taken as saying that at all. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the Board, before doing anything in this matter, must be advised by the Imperial Economic Committee. The Imperial Economic Committee has in hand an ad hoc investigation into Empire fish as a whole—Canadian fish, British fish, and all the rest; and when we get their Report as to what assistance can best be given, and all the data, we shall be in a position to consider what grant may be desirable.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: Will any part of this grant be spent in Scotland?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research covers the whole of Great Britain. This is a question more particularly in regard to the long-distance transport of fish, which is a very difficult problem, and, if it is solved in the case of England, it will be solved in the case of Scotland.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that the same amount of money is spent in advertising British products as in advertising Colonial products, as the money is found by the British taxpayer?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: From the very first the Empire Marketing Board has made it clear that Great Britain is within the Empire.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of what is Empire fish, as distinct from other fish?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the advertisement hoardings of the Empire Marketing Board have been placed in parks, commons and, open spaces in London; that these boards spoil the appearance of these green places and interfere with the enjoyment of them; and whether he will take steps to have them removed to more suitable sites?

Mr. ORMSBY -GORE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how grateful I am to my Nobs Friend the First Commissioner of Works and the various local authorities who have assisted the Empire Marketing Board by giving permission for the display, of their posters where ordinary advertisements would not be allowed. In reply to the second and third parts of the question, I believe the House will agree with me, that the display, on special designed frames, of these posters by loading British artists, does not spoil the appearance or interfere with the enjoyment of the open spaces where they are exhibited. No site of this description is selected in any part of the country without the fullest consultation with and the prior concurrence of the authority within whose jurisdiction the site lies. But I need hardly add that if in any case it is found that there exists a substantial and
well-founded complaint that any of the Board's special hoardings are interfering with the public enjoyment, the matter will be very carefully considered and steps taken to secure an alternative site.

Captain HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these boards has been put in the middle of Clapton Common?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I shall be very glad to receive any representations from the Clapton authorities in the matter.

Colonel DAY: How many of these boards are put up?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think about 500 are up and altogether there are to be 700.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman I know that what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and he is not likely to get complaints though the public eye a may be offended?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We make it perfectly clear before any of these boards are put up that the local authority who is responsible for what should or should not be accepted in any open space is consulted and its concurrence obtained.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that these designs are artistic and have created the greatest interest wherever they have been put up?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We are not only encouraging marketing, but also employing first-rate British artists.

EMPIRE BRANDY.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade. Department the amount of brandy produced during each of the last five years in Palestine, Australia and the Union of South Africa; and whether these countries impose any restrictions as to maturity before brandy can be exported?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to answer this question. I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to state the amount of brandy produced in the countries in question but only the amount of locally produced brandy exported from those countries. I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the last part of the question, Section 12 of the Spirits Act, 1906, of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that no spirits distilled in Australia may be delivered from the control of the Customs unless they have been matured in wood for a period of not less than two years. In the Union of South Africa a maturity of three years is required by Customs regulation. I regret that I have no information as to the provisions, if any, which are in force on this point in Palestine. Cyprus is also a brandy-producing country.

Mr. HARRIS: Does this Empire Marketing Board propose to ask people to drink Empire brandy, and, if so, can they-guarantee its quality?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Empire Marketing Board does not aim at advertising specific commodities but, generally speaking, it would be to the advantage of this country and of our oversea possessions if people would consume British Empire wines, and brandy would be included under that heading.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware whether Empire brandy is sold in the bars of the House of Commons?

Following are the figures:—

Export of brandy (domestic produce only) from the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa and Palestine.

Commonwealth of Australia:


Year.



Gallons.


1921–1922
…
…
…
1,420


1922–1923
…
…
…
1,319


1923–1924
…
…
…
453


1924–1925
…
…
…
440


1925–1926
…
…
…
444

Union of South Africa:


Year.




Gallons.


1922
…
…
…
…
1,347


1923
…
…
…
…
761


1924
…
…
…
…
788


1925
…
…
…
…
3,151


1926
…
…
…
…
1,043

Palestine:


Year.




Litres.


1924
…
…
…
…
34,378


1925
…
…
…
…
32,173


1926
…
…
…
…
30,869

Note.—The corresponding figures for the years 1922 and 1923 in regard to Palestine are not available in the Colonial Office.

DOMINIONS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the proportion of the total import and export trade of each of His Majesty's Dominions which was done with the United Kingdom in each of the last three fiscal years?

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer consists of a tabular statement of figures. Perhaps the hon. Member will, therefore, agree to its circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the trade of each of the Self-Governing Dominions and of India with the United Kingdom expressed as percentage proportions

Country.
Total Imports (Merchandise).
Domestic Exports (Merchandise).


Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.





Years ended 31st March.





1925.
1926.
1927.
1925.
1926.
1927.


Dominion of Canada
…
…
19.0
17.7
15.9
37.0
38.6
35.7





(Imports for consumption.)








Years ended 30th June.





1924.
1925.
1926.
1924.
1925.
1926.


Commonwealth of Australia
…
…
45.3
47.1
43.5
39.6
43.7
43.6





Years ended 31st December.





1924.
1925.
1926.
1924.
1925.
1926.


Dominion of New Zealand
…
…
47.8
48.7
45.7
81.5
81.2
79.5





Years ended 31st December.





1924.
1925.
1926.
1924.
1925.
1926.


Union of South Africa
…
…
51.5
49.9
48.9
59.2
56.3
55.9





Years ended 31st December.





1924.
1925.
1926.
1924.
1925.
1926.


Irish Free State
…
…
81.1
81.1
75.6
98.1
97.2
96.6





Years ended 30th June.





1924.
1925.
1926.
1924.
1925.
1926.


Newfoundland
…
…
22.6
31.2
21.0
31.9
31.6
23.4*





Years ended 31st March.





1925.
1926.
1927.
1925.
1926.
1927.


British India (sea-borne trade)
…
…
54.8
51.9
47.8†
25.3
20.7
21.2


* Inclusive of Re-exports.


† Not including Government Stores, full particulars regarding which are not yet available.

ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. RUNCIMAN: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will have prepared a statement showing how far the policy of Great Britain is in harmony with the findings of the Economic Conference?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I think it is well known to the House that British policy and practice in matters of commerce is in general accord with the recommendations of the Economic Conference. Those recommendations fall broadly under the following heads:
As regards liberty of trading, it has for many years been the practice of this country to accord national treatment to

of their total trade, during each of the last three trade years, calculated from the particulars published in the official returns of those countries. The figures relate to merchandise only, i.e., not including gold.

all ships, and to afford to the citizens of all countries the widest facilities for carrying on their trade in this country. Moreover, the British Government has taken an active part in promoting, and has consistently adhered to, all the conventions concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations to this end.

As regards Customs administration, Great Britain has adhered to the Customs Formalities Convention, and does not discriminate against any foreign country; and we are ready to take part in any international discussions on the possibility of simplifying the nomenclature.

As regards the scale of tariffs, it will be agreed that a distinction must be drawn between revenue duties countervailed by excise and duties into which a
protective element enters. In this respect, Great Britain may certainly claim a considerable lead, since these latter duties, as the British delegation pointed out, only apply to some 2 or 3 per cent, of British imports.

The Conference also laid stress on the importance of most-favoured-nation treatment in the widest sense. This again is in conformity with British practice, as exemplified in the whole range of our commercial treaties. Those treaties also provide in many cases, as recommended by the Conference, for the settlement of matters of dispute in the last resort by the Permanent Court of International Justice.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the hon. Member consider the issue of the statement in parallel columns of the final recommendations of the Economic Conference and the statement that he has now given in rather general form, for more precise use?

Mr. SAMUEL: The recommendations of this Conference are so many and so important that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press for any definite or immediate reply, because replies might be given which might have to be qualified afterwards and they might put my right hon. Friend into the position of having said something about which he has not had full time for consideration.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the hon. Member press on the Government the importance, at a time when all the European nations are tending more towards a policy of freedom of trade, that the Government's policy should not be directed in the opposite direction?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Member, when he is considering the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) for information in parallel columns, also give us the list of the 5,000 articles which at present are taxed for protective purposes?

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (DOMINIONS AND COLONIES).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which parts of the Empire have now
passed reciprocal legislation in connection with the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920; and whether those parts of the Empire which have not yet passed such legislation have announced their intention of doing so in the near future?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Legislation reciprocal to the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, has been passed throughout Australia, in New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, in all the Colonies not possessing responsible Government and in all British Protectorates. In Canada the question of such legislation is one which falls within the jurisdiction of the several Provinces, and it is understood that the Provincial Governments are not at present prepared to take steps for the passage of such legislation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Provincial Governments of Canada as to the great hardship this country is suffering from the failure to pass the necessary legislation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We cannot make representations direct to the Provincial Governments, of course, but the matter is under the consideration of the Dominion Government.

KENYA (KILINDINI HARBOUR).

Sir SYDNEY HENN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a definite agreement has been arrived at in connection with the control and working of Kilindini Harbour; and when a copy of that agreement will be published?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The heads of the agreement were published in the Press on 11th May. I will place a copy of the agreement itself in the Library of the House.

LAND PURCHASE, SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received representations urging him to agree to the surrender by the natives of Southern Rhodesia of the right
which they possess under Article 43 of the Constitution to purchase land in Southern Rhodesia upon the same terms as the white settlers; and whether he will give an assurance that in the event of the constitutional right being surrendered a much larger area than the suggested allotment of 8,000,000 acres for purchase by the natives shall be set aside in order to see that adequate provision is made for the future development of the native people?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to add anything to the reply made to the hon. Member on 26th May except that he understands the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly have now adopted a resolution approving generally the principles of the Report of the Land Commission with the exception of the recommendation relating to so-called "neutral areas."

FRANCE (COAL IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will now make any further statement as to the method of working the licence system under the French embargo scheme affecting imported coal, or whether there is any prospect of the abolition of the scheme?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Our Ambassador has been informed by the French Government that restrictions are now only being applied to coal required for administrative and public services, i.e., Government Departments, railways, gas and electrical works. The amount of reduction effected is 250,000 tons per month and is being applied to coal from all sources. Licences for the importation of coal from this country for the first three months of the operation of the restrictions have now been issued to an amount exceeding 3,000,000 tons. The French Government are not yet in a position to state for how long the restrictions will be maintained.

Mr. BROWN: How recent is the hon. Gentleman's information, and what are all the sources?

Mr. SAMUEL: We received a telegram from His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris this morning, therefore the information
is up-to-date. What I meant by all sources is this. The reduction referred to in the reply includes coal from German trade sources and, I believe, from German Reparation sources.

ST. STEPHEN'S HALL (PAINTING).

Mr. COUPER: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is proposed to remove the painting depicting the Unknown Warrior's Grave from St. Stephen's Hall; and, if so, whether it will be placed in some other part of the House of Commons where it would be of ready access to the public view?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that it is proposed to move the picture of the Burial of the Unknown Warrior into the King's Robing Room and place it so as to hide a very beautiful piece of tapestry; and whether, if it is necessary to move the picture at all, he will take steps to have it placed in a position to which the public has more easy access.

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The picture in question will, with the consent of the Lord Great Chamberlain, be placed for the time being in the King's Robing Room, in a position where it will not affect the tapestry. The decision to place the picture in the Robing Room, which is the first apartment on the line of route followed by visitors to the Houses of Parliament, was reached after very careful consideration, and my right hon. Friend is unaware of any more suitable position.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this room is not open to the public at all when the House is not sitting, and is only open to those who go round with Members of the House, and that no one will have a chance of seeing the picture at all?

Captain HACKING: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken. The Robing
Room is open on Saturdays for visitors without Members being present.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the removal of this picture from St. Stephen's Hall is very unpopular?

Captain HACKING: It would not fit in with the scheme of pictures in St. Stephen's Hall, which are to be unveiled on Tuesday, and that is the only reason it had to be removed. It is out of no feeling of disrespect to the artist or the donor or anyone connected with the picture. We are trying to find the best alternative position.

Mr. HAYDAY: I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to take the decision to place the picture in the King's Robing Room as a definite decision, for I heard many adverse comments this morning when showing parties round, the feeling being that such a national picture deserves a more suitable place.

Captain HACKING: I was very careful in my answer to say that the picture would only be in the Robing Room for the time being. If any hon. Member has any suggestions to make as to a better position for this picture, my right hon. Friend will be prepared very carefully to consider such suggestions.

Mr. E. BROWN: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think a permanent place in Westminster Hall would afford the greatest access to the public to view the picture, and that it would not interfere with any scheme of decorations at all in the building?

Captain HACKING: That position has been suggested to my right hon. Friend. The only drawback I can think of at the moment is that Westminster Hall is not heated, and it is possible that the picture might in consequence be damaged, but that alternative position will be taken into consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say who has the final say in the removal of any gifts by Members of this House to any other section of the Palace at Westminster?

Captain HACKING: In my reply I said that with the consent of the Lord Great
Chamberlain it had been placed in the present position. There are several people who always are consulted in connection with the position of the pictures, but I think I am right in saying that the Lord Great Chamberlain is primarily responsible.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: Is the picture depicting the Speaker being held down in the Chair opposite where the Speaker's Chair used to stand to be replaced again?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir. That picture is now in Committee Room No. 14.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: That is a downright shame!

Captain HACKING: Again, I understand there is a probability of Room No. 14 being placed in the grand tour of the Houses of Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this picture is of much more interest to the public than most of the pictures are, and will he not consider putting it in the place of some other pictures, even if it does not match the decorations?

Captain HACKING: I am afraid it is too late to do anything in relation to the present scheme in St. Stephen's entrance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—but from the point of view of prominence, perhaps it would satisfy the House if it were placed in Westminster Hall. That position will certainly receive consideration.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say why these removals were made without any consultations with Members of the House?

Captain HACKING: I do not think it is necessary to ask permission of Members of the House, but I may add that their wishes will be given every possible consideration.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is there any Committee of Members of the House of all parties to consider the removal of any pictures from one part of the House to another?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir, not at present.

TITHE ACT, 1925.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as there is no Minister responsible to the House of Commons for the actions of Queen Anne's Bounty with respect to the administration of the Tithe Act, 1925, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation for this purpose?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr.Guinness): The Tithe Act, 1925, entrusted to Queen Anne's Bounty certain duties in regard to the collection and ultimate redemption of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge. The Bounty have for many years past dealt with redemption and allied questions affecting such tithe rentcharge, and I see no reason why their administration in regard to matters which are domestic to the Church should be subject to constant review in this House. I am not prepared, therefore, to introduce legislation of the kind indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir G. WHELER: Is it a fact that a very large number of tithepayers are now brought in under the control of Queen Anne's Bounty under the new assessment who never were so closely connected with Queen Anne's Bounty before, and should they not have some right of redress if anything goes wrong?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is true, but Parliament was no doubt aware of the large area to which Queen Anne's Bounty was to be applied, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that at first, when the change over takes place, a certain amount of inconvenience is inevitable, and as there may be a special distribution in July, Queen Anne's Bounty are doing all they can to mitigate the loss.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LIVE AND DEAD MEAT (PRICES).

Mr. DREWE: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average price of fat cattle and sheep in our principal markets last week, six months ago, and a year ago?

Mr. GUINNESS: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired particulars.

Following is the statement:

The average of the prices of first and second quality fat cattle and sheep at representative markets throughout England and Wales in the weeks ending 1st June, 1927, 1st June, 1926, and 1st December, 1926, were as follow:


Week ending.
Per live cwt.
Fat Cattle.
Fat Sheep


Approximate equivalent per lb. estimated dressed car case weight.
Per lb. estimated dressed carcase weight.



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


1st June, 1927
49
4
0
9¼
1
0½


1st Dec.,1926
47
2
0
9
1
0½


1st June,1926
54
3
0
10¼
1
1

Mr. DREWE: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average retail price of beef and mutton in our principal towns last week, six months ago, and a year ago?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Average retail prices (per lb.) of specified descriptions of beef and mutton, as calculated from returns furnished by those shopkeepers, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who supply information to the Ministry of Labour relating to the prices charged to working-class families:


—
1st June,1927.
1st Dec.,1926.
1st June,1926.


Beef, British:
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Ribs
1
4¾
1
5¼
1
5½


Thin Flank
0
9¼
0
9½
0
9¾


Beef. Chilled or Frozen:


Ribs
0
9½
0
10¼
0
10


Thin Flank
0
5
0
5½
0
5¼


Mutton, British:


Leg
1
6¼
1
6½
1
7¼


Breast
0
10
0
10¼
0
10½


Mutton, Frozen:


Leg
0
11¼
0
11¾
1
0


Breast
0
4¾
0
5¼
0
5¼

MERCHANDISE MARKS.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture
what foreign agricultural products have been considered for marking by the Committee set up under the Merchandise Marks Act; when will this Committee report on these products; and whether he can give producers of British eggs any idea as to the date when unmarked foreign eggs will be prohibited from coming into this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: Four applications in respect of currants, raisins and sultanas; eggs; meat, including bacon and ham; and honey have already been submitted to the Committee. The case of imported oatmeal is also under consideration. I regret that it is not possible for me to give the dates on which the Reports of the Committee may be expected. As regards the last part of the question, I am unable to pre-judge the recommendations of the Committee.

COMMISSIONERS OF CROWN LANDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Minister of, Agriculture what funds the Crown Lands Office has at present at its disposal; what is the capital value of the present investments held by the office and the approximate annual income from these investments; what is the acreage of the land now administered by the office; how much has been bought and sold, respectively, during the last five years; and the total amounts realised and expended on the sale or purchase of land?

Mr. GUINNESS: The cash value of the securities held by the Commissioners of Crown Lands is £2,457,193; and the approximate annual income therefrom is £115,699. Exclusive of copyholds, held of the Crown, foreshores and areas in which the Crown owns the minerals but not the surface, the landed property extends to 226,000 acres, of which 108,000 acres are agricultural land, 6,500 acres are under timber and 81,800 acres of unenclosed wastes are subject to common rights. During the last five years about 9,900 acres of land have been sold, producing £458,000; and about 7,300 acres have been purchased at a cost of £356,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of these very large sums at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal and the very heavy transactions which have taken
place, would he consider the purchasing of 50 acres of land near Stonehenge which are threatened with building operations?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not come within this question.

EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state, with regard to the 2,403 employers' associations concerned with labour matters, whether these associations exist for regulating the relations between workmen and masters, or between masters and masters, or for improving conditions, or the conduct of any trade or business, or for what purpose they exist, and in what way and for what purpose the Ministry come in contact with them; and whether, in regard to the 100 principal associations, he can give the same information regarding membership, income, expenditure, and funds as is given in the Eighteenth Abstract of Labour Statistics in regard to 100 principal trade unions?

Mr. BETTERTON: The employers' associations enumerated in the Ministry of Labour's Directory of Employers' Associations, Trade Unions, etc., are those which are known by the Department to concern themselves in some way with matters relating the employment of labour. The Ministry of Labour comes into contact with many of them in the conduct of Departmental business, for example, in connection with negotiations and the collection of statistical and other information as to conditions of labour. I am unable to give the information asked for as to the membership and finances of these associations. Such of them as are registered trade unions are included in the Annual Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

Mr. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what was the character of the negotiations which took place?

Mr. BETTERTON: Negotiations generally in which we assist in the settlement of disputes. We obtain statistical and other information of the kind indicated in the question, where we can, in order to place them in our records.

Mr. MACKINDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is the authority who decides whether or not these associations
are trade unions, registered or unregistered.

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question without notice, but any registered association under the Friendly Societies Act must comply with the rules laid down by the Registrar.

Mr. MACKINDER: I am not asking that. Who is the authority who decides whether they are trade unions, registered or unregistered?

Mr. BETTERTON: That question, again, I cannot answer without notice.

Mr. MACKINDER: What is the authority that decides whether or not they are trade unions? I ask for the purpose of information.

Mr. BETTERTON: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put that down in the form of another question.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that cases have arisen where ex-service men of 100 per cent. disability pension have subsequently died from a disease not attributable to service and, as they were unemployable and uninsurable, the widows and orphans are not eligible for benefit under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and whether he will consider bringing such cases within the Act of 1925?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend of the special provisions which were inserted in the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, to enable ex-service men to secure the benefits of the scheme. One of these provisions had the effect of giving to those who had served for not less than 104 weeks in the late War the necessary qualifications for becoming voluntary contributors under the Act, if they were not required to be insured thereunder, while another was designed to facilitate payment of the contributions of voluntary contributors who were in receipt of
war pensions. My right hon. Friend is afraid that no further concession is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL WORKERS ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what number of local authorities have decided to put the Housing (Rural Workers) Act into operation?

Sir K. WOOD: Proposals have so far been submitted by 38 county councils and seven other local authorities under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and others have schemes under consideration, but have not yet actually submitted proposals.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. E. BROWN: 42.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses erected by county councils for their employés in each year from 1920 to 1926, inclusive?

Sir K. WOOD: With the consent of the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, giving the information desired.

Following is the statement:—

The following statement shows the numbers of houses erected by county councils or Joint Boards in England and Wales for their employés, with State assistance, under the Housing Acts, during each year ending in March, 1920, to 1927:—


Year ending in March.




Number of houses.


1920
…
…
…
…
2


1921
…
…
…
…
80


1922
…
…
…
…
350


1923
…
…
…
…
79


1924
…
…
…
…
16


1925
…
…
…
…
16


1926
…
…
…
…
75


1927
…
…
…
…
92

AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (RENTS).

Mr. E. BROWN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health the average rent at which houses in agricultural parishes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, are let; and the number of land workers who have obtained houses under that Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Statistics are not available giving the information desired by the hon. Member. I would point out, however, that houses erected under the 1924 Housing Act have to comply with the conditions as to rentals prescribed by the Act.

Mr. BROWN: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me of the approximate average?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that question—perhaps I can send the reply to him as it gives some examples—was answered a few weeks ago.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: is it not a fact that a rent of 7s. a week, plus rates, has usually been asked?

Sir K. WOOD: I would not care to commit myself to a general statement of that kind, but there are instances that have already been furnished to Members of the House.

CEMENT.

Mr. DENNISON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health what is the average amount of cement used in the building of a subsidy house; how much foreign cement has been used during the 12 months ending May in the building of subsidy houses; how much cheaper per ton is the foreign cement compared with Scotch manufactured cement; and will he consider the advisability of withholding the subsidy where foreign cement is used?

Sir K. WOOD: It is estimated that, on an average, about 2½ tons of cement would be required in the construction or a brick subsidy house, in cases where cement is used. I have no information as to the quantity of foreign cement used in the building of subsidy houses. According to recent quotations in Glasgow, the price of Scottish cement (blast furnace) was 47s. 6d. per ton, as compared with 47s. for foreign cement. As regards the last part of the question, Section 10 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, provides that, in approving proposals for the construction of houses, the Minister of Health shall not impose any conditions which would prevent the materials required being puchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, no power to carry out the suggestion of the hon.
Member, but the Government have urged local authorities to arrange that all contracts for or incidental to works carried out by them should, in the absence of special circumstances, be placed in this country.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that a great deal of foreign cement is used in these houses?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I cannot say that.

Mr. HARRIS: Are not these houses quite expensive enough without adding to their cost by insisting on British-made materials?

CHILD LABOUR.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the joint committee of the Industrial Conference of 1919 expressed the opinion that child labour was bad in principle and tended in practice to decrease the chances of adult employment, and that, consequently, the age at which a child should enter employment should be raised; and whether, in view of these expressions, it is proposed to take any general action to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the conference.

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the recommendation to which the hon. Member refers. Since 1919 the employment of child labour has been further restricted under Statute, and in particular by the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920. The question of what action should be taken in the future is largely bound up with that of the school-leaving age in regard to which I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education on the 16th June, 1927, to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson).

Mr. WILSON: Will that mean, as far as the Government are concerned, leaving the applications entirely to the local authorities who desire to put it into operation, and that nothing further is contemplated?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think that question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Education. If the hon.
Member looks at the very long answer which he gave on the 16th June, he will see that he dealt with it.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (GLAMOR- GANSHIRE COLLIERIES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 47.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that 2,500 men employed at six collieries in Glamorganshire have received 14 days' notice to terminate their agreements; and will he ascertain from the firm concerned whether any steps can be taken to avert these discharges?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have seen a statement to this effect in the Press, but I understand on inquiry from the company concerned that they still hope, if the state of trade permits, to continue working on day-to-day contracts after the notices have expired.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that these six collieries belong to Baldwin's, Limited, cannot the hon. Member ask the Prime Minister whether he can use his influence—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. E. BROWN: Has this anything to do with the French embargo?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. It is attributed partly to the French embargo and partly to the depression in the iron and steel trade.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that men are getting notices like these throughout the length and breadth of the land, including the best districts such as South Yorkshire?

Colonel LANE FOX: Not for the same reason.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the proprietors of these collieries trying to work on the one-shift system, instead of two shifts, which we find in some parts of the country is the best way of keeping the men together?

Colonel LANE FOX: Hon. Members can rely upon the Government doing the best they can at the moment.

Mr. PALING: Is the Government's "best" likely to be no better than it was last year?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that a great many new coal sources were opened up on the Continent last year on account of the coal strike which have not yet been shut down and that that is responsible for a good deal of the trouble?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MESSING ARRANGEMENTS, PORTSMOUTH (PETTY OFFICERS).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 48.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that because an irregularity occurred in the administration of the petty officers' mess in the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, that mess has been placed on the general messing system against the wishes of the members of the mess; and whether the privilege of petty officers making their own messing arrangements is now withdrawn?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am having inquiries made and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know as soon as they are completed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the spelling of "Royal Naval Barracks" in this question as it appears on the Order Paper? Is it not usual to use capital letters for the words "Royal Naval"? Can this be altered in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will look into the matter.

INVALIDED RATINGS.

Sir B. FALLE: 49.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of ratings invalided from the Royal Navy in the year ending 31st March, 1927; and the numbers invalided for tuberculosis and for nephritis and other kidney and bladder troubles, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The figures for the year ending 31st March, 1927, are not available, but during the year 1926 (1st January to 31st December), 1,725 ratings were invalided. In the same period the number invalided for tuberculosis was 197, but the figures for nephritis and other kidney diseases and bladder troubles will not be available for some months.

SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. HARDIE: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to proceed with the further stages of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): As matters stand, my right hon. Friend fears that no further progress can be made with the Bill until the Autumn. He hopes that it may be possible to pass the Bill in the limited time then available, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be prepared to facilitate its progress.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Bill will go through without any opposition if the Government will take into consideration the harsh treatment being meted out to a few old servants?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend is well aware of these allegations of harshness, but they did not convince the Treasury officials during the tenure of power of the hon. Member's own party.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Apart from that party debating point, is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that these grievances have been specifically brought to the notice of his Department, and cannot he take steps to get them remedied?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is he not aware that the fees charged in the Sheriff and the Small Debts Court were materially added to, and that it will make it more difficult for poor people in Scotland to get access to the Courts, and that the fees were raised for the purpose of paying proper salaries to the officials, and they have not been used for that purpose?

Major ELLIOT: These are matters for debate, and it will be improper for me now to go into them. If hon. Members oppose the passage of the Bill, it will not pass, and these gentlemen will not get any redress.

Mr. HARDIE: May the House know what has been done with the funds which
have been collected in adding to the fees? If they have not been given to the officials, who has got them; have they been handed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not argue the matter.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (FLATS, SOUTH KENSINGTON).

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the demand made by the owner of a block of flats known as. Warwick Chambers, South Kensington, for the immediate removal by the Post Office of all telephones connected to the tenants occupying flats in the said building; and whether he will see that no steps are taken by his Department to deprive the tenants who have agreements with the Post Office of their telephones?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am advised that the landlady in this case is acting within her legal rights in requiring the removal of the telephone at the flats, and I have no option but to comply. Provision is made in the subscribers' agreements for summary termination if way-leave difficulties arise. I regret the unfortunate position in which the tenants find themselves, and I am considering the possibility of introducing legislation to meet such cases.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several of these tenants have had agreements with the telephone department of the Post Office for many years, and has any reason been given to the Post Office for this very highhanded action on the part of the landlord?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

Colonel DAY: Must the Post Office authorities remove any telephone wires when a landlord asks them to do so?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require notice of a general question like that.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH TRADE (PASSPORTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the statement of His Majesty's Government that no obstacle would be placed in the way of legitimate trade between this country and Russia, he will state the procedure for business men or their agents wishing to visit Russia for purposes of business; whether the Norwegian Government will obtain visas for these, British subjects, in view of his statement that British passports are no longer endorsed valid for entry into Soviet territory; and whether he will state what should be the procedure for British subjects to obtain visas for Russia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have ascertained that the Soviet Government state that applications for visas for Russia should be made to the Soviet representative in Berlin.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the object in not making the passports valid to Russia when people wish to go there for legitimate business? Does the hon. Member not see that it makes it difficult for business men to get their visas?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It has been stated already that we are very anxious not to interfere with legitimate trade between this country and Russia. But it would he very unusual to give passports to a country with which we have broken off diplomatic relations. In the second place, if we gave passports we could not possibly guarantee the safety of the people who received them.

ARCOS, LIMITED.

Mr. REMER: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can make a statement as to the number of foreign employés of Arcos, Limited, who still remain in this country?

Captain HACKING: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which the Home Secretary made on Thursday last in reply to questions by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Romford (Mr. Rhys) and Bath (Captain Foxcroft).

Mr. CLYNES: Does that reply include the number of aliens who have been required to leave the country?

Captain HACKING: Yes, as far as Arcos is concerned. My right hon. Friend stated that 350 were employed in Arcos, and that 48 of these have left or are about to leave.

BRITISH CHILDREN (VISIT).

Sir W. DAVISON: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the six British children who were refused passports to go to Russia to study Soviet methods have now left London for Petrograd on a Soviet-owned steamship; whether the emigration officer consented to their departure; and what steps the Home Office proposes to take to prevent such occurrences in the future?

Captain HACKING: I am informed that the children in question sailed in the Soviet s.s. "Youshar" on Tuesday evening. The law places no restriction upon persons leaving this country and therefore neither the Home Secretary nor his officers had any power to intervene and no consent was required. Passports were refused to those who did not already possess them because the Government were not prepared to facilitate their journey.

Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the large powers which the State possesses to protect children's bodies from contamination does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable that their minds should also be protected from contamination?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CHINA).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China is still an effective member of the League of Nations; by whom that country is represented at the Geneva Conference; whether such delegate is acting on instructions received from the Cantonese Government or the Government centred at Peking; and if he can indicate, for the information of the House, what measures have been taken by the League with the object of remedying the existing conditions in China, with their reactions in other parts of the world?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: China is still a member of the League of Nations, and is represented on the Council by Mr. Chu. Mr. Chu was appointed by the Peking Government. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given on the 16th of February last by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the questions asked by the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and Peckham (Mr. Dalton). The hon. Members were then referred to the letter addressed by His Majesty's Government to the League of Nations on the 8th of February, stating that they deeply regretted that there did not appear to be any way in which the assistance of the League in the settlement of the difficulties in China could he sought at present. The letter added that if any opportunity should arise of invoking the good offices of the League His Majesty's Government would gladly avail themselves of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of nursery schools aided or maintained by local education authorities which are recognised by the Board of Education; and have any recognised nursery schools been opened or closed during the lifetime of His Majesty's present Government?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): There are at present recognised by the Board 26 nursery schools, of which 11 are provided by local authorities. Of the 15 voluntary schools, all but one are provided by the local authority. Two nursery schools have been opened and three have been closed since the present Government assumed office.

Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the closing of these nursery schools is due to the fact that the Board of Education are not favourable to them?

Lord E. PERCY: It is not due to that cause. I do not know what the particular cause is in this case.

Colonel DAY: Is the President of the Board of Education encouraging the
opening of those schools which have been closed?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member wants to know anything more about these particular schools, perhaps he will put down a question.

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Mr. HARRIS: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the arbitration award by Viscount Burnham on the scales of salaries for teachers in public elementary schools included a provision that existing teachers should not receive a less rate of salary as from 1st April, 1925, than they were receiving on the 31st March, 1925; whether the Board are aware that teachers absent from school on account of ill-health for periods which involve a loss of pay are liable to have their salaries reassessed and reduced; whether such reassessment of salaries is approved by the Board; and whether, if the complaints of teachers with regard to this matter are substantiated, the Board will make representations to the arbitrator on this subject?

Lord E. PERCY: The interpretation of the award is a matter which rests with the Burnham Committees. The particular decision referred to by the hon. Member is based on the principle that teachers with the Same qualifications and service should receive the same salaries, and I see no ground for suggesting its reconsideration.

Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the Burnham Committee is sitting permanently to interpret its decisions, or does the Board of Education take over their functions?

Lord E. PERCY: No. It is a Committee of the Burnham Committee which site, and as far as I know is ready to go on sitting in connection with the award.

Mr. HARRIS: Does this Committee sit in connection with the Board of Education or does it interpret the award independently?

Lord E. PERCY: It is in touch with the Board of Education, but the Burnham arrangement is one between the local authorities and the teachers, and is naturally interpreted by a Committee representing these two parties.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. HARRIS: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education what are the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board to consider matters relating to mentally defective children; has the Committee taken any evidence from witnesses; when is the Committee likely to make its Report; and, having regard to the fact that the development of schools for mentally defective children is being held up pending the findings of the Departmental Committee, have the Board any intention of asking for an interim Report?

Lord E. PERCY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 24th March last to the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin), a copy of which I am sending him. I understand that the Committee have not called witnesses, and that they hope to be able to report early next year. There appears, therefore, to be no occasion to ask them to consider making an interim Report.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In view of the uncertainty of a large number of local authorities as to what exactly is the policy of the Board of Education towards the provision of special schools for mentally defective children, can the right hon. Gentleman facilitate the issue of this Report or make some further statement in order that local authorities may know what they are expected to do?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. There is no uncertainty in the mind of local authorities, and any local authority which wishes to consult the Board can do so at any moment.

Mr. MORRISON: Am I to understand that the President of the Board of Education wishes local authorities to feel that no further provision should be made for special schools for mentally defective children?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is not to understand that. He is to understand that local authorities are free to consult with the Board in connection with any project they have in mind for
the provision of special schools for these children.

Mr. MORRISON: Is it not the case that a considerable number of local authorities have submitted plans for these special schools for mentally defective children, and, as they have not met with the approval of the Board, they are in some doubt on the matter?

Lord E. PERCY: After the communications they have had with the Board, I do not think they can be in any doubt at all.

NEWPORT SECONDARY SCHOOL (JOAN ROGERS).

Mr. GROVES: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Newport Education Authority in excluding from the Newport secondary school Joan Rogers, a 15 years old girl, on the ground that she is unvaccinated; and whether, in view of the ruling of the Board in the year 1909 and of the action it has taken in other similar eases, he will intervene on behalf of this schoolgirl and secure her re-admission to the school?

Lord E. PERCY: My attention has already been called to this case by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry). I understand that the local authority excluded this girl from school on the advice of the school medical officer acting in conjunction with the borough medical officer of health, owing to the prevalence of smallpox in the area outside the borough in which the girl lives, but that they are prepared to re-admit her to school provided Gat her parents are willing to allow her to live within the borough so long as the epidemic continues. In these circumstances, I do not think that I should be justified in interfering with the action taken by the authority on the recommendation of their competent medical advisers.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether this action does not really override the Act of Parliament, which enables the parents of a child to decide whether or not it shall be vaccinated?

Lord E. PERCY: It is entirely open to the parents to decide whether a child shall be vaccinated. The law does not enforce any other parent, or those responsible for the children of other
parents, to expose other children to the risks.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the law that this child is to be permitted under the conditions that prevail in Newport to attend at this school, and are not the authorities using their power to prevent the child getting the education to which she is entitled? Does not the law allow those who object to vaccination to mix with those who support vaccination?

Lord E. PERCY: As far as I can understand the hon. Member, the answer to all three parts of his question is "No."

ARRESTS FOR DEBT.

Colonel DAY: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether any facilities exist in the Metropolitan area to enable persons arrested for non-compliance with a judgment order for debt on a Saturday to satisfy the demands of the same during that day, so as to avoid their retention in prison until the following Monday?

Captain HACKING: Reasonable facilities are afforded to a debtor to satisfy a judgment debt. The procedure for securing discharge on payment varies according to the Court concerned. If the hon. Member will put down a question regarding the particular class of case he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will answer it.

WOMEN POLICE.

Colonel DAY: 64.
asked the Home Secretary the present total establishment of women police employed in the Metropolitan police area, the districts where these officers are on duty, and the annual cost?

Captain HACKING: There are at present two inspectors, five sergeants and 42 constables of the Women Police employed in the Metropolitan Police District. They are allocated for duty in the various parts of the district as may be required. The total cost of the Women Police for the year 1926–27 was approximately £9,400.

Colonel DAY: Do I understand that these officers have no regular places of duty, but are sent about the West End of London?

Captain HACKING: They are attached to certain districts, but are frequently moved about as necessity arises.

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Mr. GROVES: 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the refusal of certain London magistrates to take statutory declarations under the Vaccination Act, 1907; and whether he has taken action in the cases that have been brought to his notice?

Captain HACKING: In the case of Metropolitan Police Magistrates two complaints of the nature referred to have been made to my right hon. Friend within the last year, and in both instances he found on inquiry that the facts were inaccurately represented and that there had been no refusal on the part of the magistrate. Complaints of the conduct of individual Justices of the Peace other than Stipendiary Magistrates are a matter for the Lord Chancellor rather than for my Department.

Mr. PALING: Where there is a genuine case of a man refusing to sign these application forms will the Under-Secretary state what the procedure is?

Captain HACKING: The hon. Member must communicate with the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. GROVES: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the fatal case of small-pox from King Henry's Road, Hampstead, removed to the Dartford small-pox hospital, was a woman who had been vaccinated in infancy and re-vaccinated at the age of 11 years; and whether he can state the source of infection in this case?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is informed that woman, who was 40 years old at the time of death, was said by her mother to have been unsuccessfully vaccinated in infancy, and was not re-vaccinated at the age of 11, her history in that respect having been confused with that of her sister. The source of infection has not been traced.

CURRENCY.

Sir F. WISE: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the pre-War currency per head of the population and the currency
per head of the population on the 31st March, 1927 (notes and gold)?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): 

ESTIMATED CURRENCY PER HEAD IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IRISH FREE STATE.


—
30th June, 1914.
31st March, 1927.


Amount.
Per head.
Amount.
Per head.




£
£
s.
d.
£
£
s.
d.


Bank of England Notes (a)
…
29,784,000

12
11
81,703,000
1
13
11


Currency Notes
…
—
—
288,067,000
5
19
6


Gold Coin
…
123,000,000(b)
2
13
5
—(c)
—


Silver Coin
…
34,000,000

14
9
52,000,000(d)
1
1
7


Bronze Coin
…
8,000,000

3
4


Total
…
186,784,000
4
1
1
429,770,000
8
18
4


(a) Excluding notes held in the Bank of England Reserve and, in 1927, in the Currency Note Reserve.


(b) Estimate used by Cunliffe Committee (par. 13 of Interim Report).


(c) The amount of Gold Coin which may be in the hands of the public is unknown.


(d) Excluding Silver Coin held in Currency Note Reserve.

Sir F. WISE: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the recent Whitsuntide demands brought the Treasury note issue to within about £1,000,000 of the fiduciary maximum, if he will consider setting up a Committee, to consider this technical financial problem?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir. There is nothing abnormal in the fiduciary circulation approaching the maximum at holiday time and there is no special problem involved therein.

AFFORESTATION.

Captain GARRO-JONES (for Sir R. THOMAS): 36.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commission, whether he will consider the possibility of extending the policy of afforestation now being pursued by his Department with a view to relieving present unemployment as well as replacing the national timber resources?

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): No distinction is now made between the Forestry Commission's normal and relief work, the latter being met by adjustment of policy which included the adoption of an annually expanding planting programme.

With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the stament:

The Seventh Annual Report of the Forestry Commissioners, recently published, dealing with forest policy shows that the present position is not satisfactory and sets out some of the chief considerations which have to be borne in mind in laying down the future forest policy of Great Britain.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (IRON AND STEEL).

Mr. REMER (for Sir FRANK SANDERSON): 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued depression in the heavy industries and the increase in volume of imports of manufactured steel and iron goods, he will consider safeguarding this industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) on 16th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what Votes he proposes to take on Wednesday?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Mansell): The Estimates for the Ministry of Health and the Dominions Office will be considered in Committee of Supply on Wednesday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMIT- TEES),

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Sir Granville Wheler; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ellis.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1927.

CLASS I.

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £198,158, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments.—[Note:£120,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
It is now some years since we had an opportunity of having a discussion on the Treasury Vote, although this is one of the Estimates which may give rise, and ought to give rise, year by year to Debates of first-class importance. We have asked for this Vote for the purpose of discussing one or two questions which have recently been raised by hon. Members in different parts of the Committee, and the two questions on which, personally, I invite an expression of opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer are, of course, purely administrative in character but of great importance. They relate, in the first place, to recent changes in the higher personnel of the Civil Service, and, in the second place, to the decision which the right hon. Gentleman intimated, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) regarding the request or suggestion of Mr. McKenna made at the annual meeting of the Midland Bank shareholders for some inquiry into the position of our central banking institution in Great Britain, as compared with the American Federal Reserve system, and the bearing of both on our industry and commerce, more particularly on the depression of the past five or six years.
The second of these questions is undeniably far more important, but if the
Committee will bear with me, I will at the outset briefly discuss the first—that relating to changes in the Civil Service personnel. We in the House of Commons are intimately associated with the Civil Service, and we know that the Treasury, as the Department which includes the Controller of Establishments, is the Department—particularly that branch of it which is under the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—which has a very great responsibility for the efficiency of the service and for its encouragement from time to time. I begin this afternoon by making it plain that we on this side of the Committee do not join in that consistent attack which is made on the Civil Service by certain organs of the Press in this country and by a certain section, though I trust only a limited section, of public opinion. It is plain to all of us that if the Civil Service is to reach its highest efficiency it must be safeguarded, since it cannot reply for itself, against unfair attacks of that description. Although we are not here to suggest that the members of the Civil Service do not from time to time, like all of us, fall into error, the object of raising this question is one which is wholly sympathetic to the Civil Service as such. We approach it purely from the point of view of the public interest, and certainly from the point of view of the efficiency of the service.
Some time ago, there was announced in the Press a series of changes in the higher administrative personnel, which could not fail to attract the attention of Members of Parliament. On that occasion seven or eight changes of great importance were announced, and, in particular, there were changes which involved the resignation from the service of the Controller of Finance at the Treasury on his acceptance, as from 1st August, of a post in the Bank of England, and the combination of the duties of Controller of Finance and Controller of Supply Services at the Treasury under a civil servant of great distinction who, up to 1st August, will be Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. The change involved at the same time the resignation of the Controller of Supply Services—of course, both of these resignations being purely voluntary in character. In one case it meant that an official was leaving the Civil Service to become our representative on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company,
and in the other case, the official who will leave the Civil Service is proceeding to a great sphere of influence and public service in this appointment in the Bank of England. While these things are perfectly true, the changes for the State are of very great significance. Other changes were announced at the same time, the details of which I need not specify, but one of them involved the transfer of the Secretary of the Mines Department—that Department being then, as now, under sentence of death—to the Chairmanship of the Board of Inland Revenue, and a number of other transfers of that kind.
4.0 p.m.
Let me approach one or two of the questions which we have particularly in mind. Hon. Members will begin by wishing to retain for the service of the State the ability and power and experience of those civil servants who have been for many years in our employment. Certainly, when we compare the attractions which are offered by outside employment in certain cases to leading civil servants with the emoluments even in the higher branches of the Service, we are obliged to confess that it is surprising, on the whole, that more men do not leave the Service. That there is a certain encouragement in superannuation and other rights is not denied, but those rights are being increasingly provided in outside employment. Men are content to remain in it because they love the Civil Service, because they like the form of the work, and, on the whole, the loss to the State under that head is comparatively small. But these changes at this juncture are important. The point which arises here is whether we do all in our power—and I am not referring here to the salary and other emoluments—to give them that encouragement to remain in the Service, and whether a good deal more might not be done under that head? I am driven to the conclusion that one of the indirect effects of this form of agitation or attack, continued year by year, is to dishearten men who have been energetic and public-spirited in our service, and perhaps to encourage them to look for other employment outside when they have still great duties which they might render to us. Be that as it may, I feel that the overwhelming opinion, probably the unanimous opinion, of this House is that we must set our faces
against campaigns of that description, and more on that head need not be said this afternoon.
We come now to the other consideration. Most hon. Members, if they were asked what is the general practice or policy of encouragement in the Civil Service, would say that, probably, to the best of their knowledge, the Service is very much like an ordinary business undertaking where men are trained up in one department or another, and are led to hope that if they render efficient service, they will, in due course, be at the head of the departments to which they are attached, or, it may be, at the head of an adjacent department for which their experience qualifies them. That has been the theory held by a large number of Members of this House, although we recognise this afternoon that frequently departures from that theory and practice have been made by the appointment of men to certain departments or branches of our Service or by their transfer when a course of that kind was deemed to be desirable. The recent leading changes, almost wholesale in character, raise the question in many minds in this House, and I think in many minds outside, as to whether there has been any great departure from this principle within the Civil Service? Within recent times—and here, of course, and throughout the speech. I make no reflection upon individual civil servants, because I have no reason to have other than the highest admiration of their work—but within recent times it has been suggested that there has been a tendency to build up a group of what we might call general managers, within the Service, that is, men, no doubt of outstanding ability, who have served in different departments, and who might be regarded as a group—I will not, say a pool, because that is now, perhaps, an inaccurate word to use—for appointment to different departments as may be deemed desirable by Ministers of the day, with whom the responsibility must rest, on the advice of this group or body of leading civil servants themselves, in so far as that advice is invited or tendered in making the appointments.
That is, in reality, the important consideration which, I think, the Committee should have before it this afternoon. What method is best calculated to get
the maximum return from the Civil Service in the way of the discharge of public duty, and to encourage the personnel of of the service itself? Will that be better encouraged by adhering, as far as we possibly can, to the system of departmental promotion, or will greater encouragement come from the presence of that group of what I call general managers who are available for appointment as heads of those departments on something like the principle which, a week or two ago, when these changes were announced, was apparently in force? I make it plain that this is a matter of very great difficulty for any Member of the House of Commons. It is not a question in which we can draw a hard-and-fast line, but I would be inclined to say that, before we part to a substantial extent with the system of steady departmental promotion, we should have one or two important points in mind. There cannot be the least doubt that the most efficient discharge of duties in the Civil Service to-day, at a time when the functions of the State have enormously increased depends, to a great extent, upon a considerable amount of specialisation, that is, the civil servant is trained in a department; he grows up through years of experience in that department; and when, on that principle, he arrives at the top, he will be familiar not only with the details of the department of which he has been a member, but also with the broad policy which is particularly what is under examination when he comes before the Public Accounts Committee of this House to-day rather than strict figures of Departmental expenditure. When we look to post-War conditions the plea for that specialisation becomes even more pronounced.
I can best illustrate it by describing one of the important changes which have taken place. Notice that under this scheme—and of course it is altogether administrative in character; there is no question of legislation—the Government will combine—here, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible—the duties of the Controller of Finance with those of the Supply Services, and to that combination, which means a far greater strain upon the holder of the office, you bring a distinguished civil servant who has been Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. The thought that would occur to anyone
who has had even a brief experience of the Treasury, and must occur to many Members of this House, is that while admitting the ability of the Civil Service in adapting itself to new duties—I am not raising any point of that kind this afternoon—in the Controllership of the Treasury you have an official who is in immediate contact with the Bank of England and must deal with fundamental problems of our national finance. In the second place, the Controller of Finance is responsible to a large extent for inter-Allied financial problems, for the discussion of reparation problems with other nations and for a wide variety of issues of first-class importance, involving directly and indirectly thousands of millions of the money belonging to the people, or likely to belong to them—I hope some of it will—in times to come. Surely, it is plain that in circumstances of that description it will be in the national interest to rely upon an official who has the necessary experience or what I will call the historical background for the discharge of the duty, and I would say that, however able he may be from every point of view, it would be very difficult indeed for the holder of that combined appointment to place his linger readily and easily on all the facts and all the evidence in the very difficult times in adjustment of our relations with the Bank of England, in currency policy, and in other matters to which this country is moving. Did the Government have that in view when these changes were made, and was the element of the departmental experience, which is of vital importance in this connection, sufficiently emphasised? I think that the House of Commons, and probably the country, will expect an expression of opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon.
There is another side to this question. I alluded a minute ago to the fact that this office had been combined with the control of the Supply Services. What in practice, does that mean in our national finance? In this Department of the Controllership of the Supply Services you have a leading civil servant who is responsible for a general review of all that relationship which exists, between the State on the one side and the local authorities on the other. And when you consider what the local authorities are spending,
and what the State is contributing to the local authorities, you have there, again, £1200,000,000 or £300,000,000 of expenditure of one kind or another every year. Moreover, at this juncture, that problem is under close inquiry and investigation, because the Government indicated some time ago that they proposed to find, if they possibly could, some method of replacing the existing system of percentage grants by a form of overhead or block grants.
That inquiry is proceeding at the present time. Whatever the decision, it is of vital importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is certainly of vital importance to the local authorities, especially if it means the transfer of certain burdens now borne by the State to the local authorities. There, plainly, you have a point of very great importance at a time of difficulty in industrial recovery, when rates, in many cases, are a greater burden than the burden of national taxation itself. Just at this juncture, when you have those very difficult questions before the people—and they are largely matters of finance—you combine these two offices, and you bring to the two offices a man for whom many of us have the greatest regard but who has not been in Departmental touch with these problems in recent years. Far be it from me to suggest for a moment that that distinguished civil servant will not be equal to the strain. That is not my case. My case is rather to ask whether there is not great danger or some risk to the national interest in the combination, and in placing the chief responsibility in one who has not the historical background in strictly Treasury experience which many believe to be necessary in the circumstances described.
That is a concrete illustration that I give of the importance of this change. It may be necessary, to some extent, to modify the old system of Departmental promotion, because I do not suppose it is disputed that certain Departments in the past tended, under that system, to drift into not the strongest personnel by any means by which they might have been manned, and that outsiders—within the Service, of course—had to be called in. Be that as it may, even if you do modify the system of Departmental promotion,
are you not going too far in setting up a group, or attempting to set up a group, of general managers, if the effect of that is going to be to make a considerable section of the administrative class of the Civil Service feel that, however hard it works, however efficient it is, and however well it exerts itself to study its subject, it cannot reach the head of the Department in which its experience has been built up? That calls for the serious consideration of this House.
I come, in the second place, to what is the more important part of our appeal. and here we are dealing with a subject of very great technicality, in which large numbers of business men, a large section of the movement to which I belong, and many others are keenly interested at the moment. At the annual meeting of the shareholders of the Midland Bank, Mr. McKenna made an elaborate plea for an impartial inquiry into our system of central banking, by which, of course, he meant the Bank of England, and the working of our general credit and currency system, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be prepared to facilitate an inquiry of that kind, the Chancellor replied that at that stage he did not think a sufficient case had been made out He went on to add that he was nervous, as I gathered, of the unsettling effects that such an inquiry might have in many directions, and on these grounds—and probably on others for all I know—the request was refused. That was, of course, an administrative act on the right hon. Gentleman's part; it was a Departmental decision, and it is, therefore, perfectly appropriate matter for debate when we take the Treasury Vote this afternoon. But here is an issue of first-class importance to British industry and commerce and also to the employment of large numbers of our people because there is a widespread opinion in business and other circles at the present time that some part of our depression—I could not measure the amount—is due to the currency and credit policy which we have pursued in this country in preparation for a return to the gold standard since 1921.
Let us be perfectly clear and fair as to the nature of Mr. McKenna's appeal. This, of course, is no party matter,
because men in all parties agree with it, and in all parties there is very considerable difference of opinion. I am going to try to state the case as impartially as I can, in order that from the right hon. Gentleman we may get some expression of the Government's views. Mr. McKenna took the year 1921, and he referred to the divergence, as he described it, between American credit and currency policy under the federal reserve system since that time, as compared with the policy which we have pursued in Great Britain—admittedly a policy pursued by successive Governments, and designed to restore our credit and to provide conditions that would lead to an easier return to the gold standard, adopted in the decision of the Government in April, 1925. He then went on to contrast the apparent prosperity of the United States of America, on the one side, with those five or six years of industrial depression in this country on the other. Making allowance for the exceptional period in 1924, in which there was some little interruption of that prosperity in America, most hon. Members will agree that the United States have enjoyed remarkable material success, and we, on the other side, have made very little inroad upon the unemployment and the depression which have overtaken us. I do not ignore—and, of course, it would be perfectly idle to ignore—the extent to which we have been adversely affected by industrial dislocation. Whatever view we take of the causes of that dislocation, its economic effects are perfectly plain to everyone, but even when allowance has been made for that, it is possible to raise a very large question as to whether there is anything in this divergent currency and credit policy which will partly explain our difficulties, as compared with the United States.
A great deal of discussion has taken place since Mr. McKenna made that speech. The speech was diametrically opposed to that of another chairman of one of the leading banking institutions, and I would say that on that ground alone you have a case for inquiry, because plainly, when you have two of the leaders of the large banks, two of the Big Five in this country, laying down manifestly contradictory doctrines, what is ordinary business in this country to believe, and what are the masses of the people to
believe? I should think nine people out of ten would say that if these great authorities differ, the very least you can undertake is some kind of inquiry, at least to ascertain the facts, because we want every instrument we possibly can get for the restoration of our industry and commerce, and it is my belief that the recovery will come, not by one route, but by several routes. And if this is a conceivable route, it is worth exploration. Those two authorities were in flat contradiction.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): What two authorities?

Mr. GRAHAM: Mr. McKenna and Mr. Goodenough. So that, prima facie, you have some kind of case for inquiry, even if nothing more was said. Pursuing the argument a little further, we have to recognise, of course, the very great difference in American conditions. America got, as we know, an enormous quantity of the world's gold, and she still holds it, and it might be argued that American prosperity has been due to some extent to the use of that gold reserve, at all events, for the purposes of moderate in flation. Most of the authorities seem to argue that America has steered clear of inflation, except perhaps to a very limited extent; that, in point of fact, she has sat on the gold reserve for the express purpose of keeping free of a difficulty of that kind; and if you take the price level as a test, I am inclined to agree that on that test she has established a very large part of her case. Then we have to keep in mind that America has had the advantage of debt settlements, which compare rather favourably with such debt settlements as this country has been able to obtain, and it is also true that we are, I am afraid, now certain to make a very large part of the financial sacrifices arising from the War.

Mr. CHURCHILL: How has America the advantage?

Mr. GRAHAM: In that they have achieved settlements, and we still have settlements to achieve.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman must compare like with like; he must compare the American settlement with Italy or the American settlement with France with the British settlements with those countries.

Mr. GRAHAM: What I have in mind this afternoon is the general problem of War contributions and debt settlements, and I would be inclined to say that, on all the analyses, America is comparatively in a much better position to-day than this country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The only respect in which she is in a better position is because of the settlement which she has made with Great Britain, and it is not open for Great Britain to make a similar settlement with Great Britain.

Mr. GRAHAM: No, but the point I am making is that, taking everything into account, America has—I will put it another way—shouldered very much less of the burden, proportionately, than has fallen to us in this country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite true.

Mr. GRAHAM: All these considerations are present in the American situation, and probably to some extent they undermine, or at all events modify, the comparison upon which Mr. McKenna embarked; but in the long run he came down to this, that when an analysis was made of the currency and credit operations under the federal reserve system, as compared with what we had in practice in this country under the Bank Charter Act of 1844, there was a greater elasticity in the American system, and that is the argument which has since been generally used. There, again, you have a mass of technical detail, and I certainly will not attempt to detain the Committee with it this afternoon. I am perfectly well aware that high technical authorities dispute that contention, and that they argue that we have just as much elasticity in credit and currency in this country under our system as they have under the federal reserve method in the United States. Be that as it may, there remains a body of opinion which attributes at least a part of that American prosperity in those years between 1921 and the present day to a greater freedom within the federal reserve system than we have enjoyed in the corresponding period, even when allowance is made for the difference in position between the two countries, and so they throw in their lot with the Chairman of the Midland Bank in favour of this inquiry.
Now, may we turn to the nature of the reply which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer gave? He said that it might have an unsettling influence in many directions. I can only try to indicate what probably would be at the back of his mind in this connection, but I imagine that he had in view the danger of any statement which could be interpreted as implying even a bare possibility of inflation in Great Britain. A speech was made some years ago by a Conservative Minister now outside this House—he was then, I think, a Member of this House—who suggested that our currency and credit policy might be altered in such a way as to provide for some inflation, and I very well remember the anxiety that was caused at that time and the steps which were taken almost immediately to correct the impression he gave. Now it is, of course, only fair to Mr. McKenna, and it is only fair to our own judgment in this matter, to say at once that Mr. McKenna had not in view either inflation or deflation. In that speech to the shareholders of the Midland Bank both were excluded, and speaking quite for myself, from this part of our argument to-day they are also excluded.
I think that this inquiry can proceed without any risk of that kind, but even if the Chancellor took another view and felt that there was a danger in it, he might very well say that the possibility of even mild inflation was excluded, but that on the technique of the inquiry he was willing to proceed, and by that I mean the operation of the Bank of England system and the extent to which there is in fact avoidable restriction in the holding of the gold reserve and the regulation of our credit and currency policy. The plea for that inquiry has been supported by facts of impressive importance within recent times. It was pointed out some days ago at a gathering in London that of all the numerous countries which had embarked upon a reconstruction of their financial machinery since the War, very few, if any, have adopted the exact form of central banking system which is in force in this country. In point of fact, the schemes which have been put into operation are very much nearer to the American federal reserve method, and, if that be true, we are bound to ask whether all is finally well with our machinery.
May I urge one consideration in conclusion? The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that this is a very risky moment even for an inquiry, because, as the Committee know, we are approaching the time when there will be an amalgamation of the currency note issue and the Bank of England note issue and determination of the very important question as to the point at which the amount of gold behind that amalgamation is to be fixed. Of course, it is plain to all or us that before this Government, or any Government, can approach a decision in this matter they must themselves engage in very elaborate private inquiry into the problem. My case this afternoon is that so far as there is any material for those inquiries which is available for the guidance of industry and commerce it should be placed at their disposal now. Even if industrial dislocation passes away, even if we get rather more favourable access to markets than appears to be possible at the moment, we shall be admittedly making a very small inroad upon what I would call deadweight unemployment. I do not fear, speaking again for myself, a slight increase in our price level in this country as altogether undesirable if that increase means a compensating stimulus to industry and commerce. If hon. Members will recall what was written by Sir Josiah Stamp in a minority report of one of the investigations into the coal problem, they will remember that the operation of this preparation for a return to the gold standard was there related, in a very clear way, to a first-class industrial issue; and that, of course, is only one illustration. If there were to be some change in the price level, what we have to do to-day in an inquiry of this kind is to weigh up the advantages and the disadvantages of that change. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that that will involve burdens for the State, and it will be to some extent going back upon all that we have done in the restoration of our credit.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I say it would involve a reduction of wages.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not sure it would, but, on the other hand, so long as this depression lasts the State has to carry very heavy burdens of an entirely or very largely unremunerative character; because to-day our financial
system is honeycombed by a mass of outlay on unemployment benefit and by ill-concealed subsidies of one kind or another which to some extent might be reduced—I should think would be largely reduced—if we could stimulate industrial recovery. Though these serious problems, which I have done nothing more than summarise this afternoon, are the ingredients of controversy at the present time, I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to believe that, much as we are opposed to this Government, they have not been presented in any purely party spirit. The right hon. Gentleman knows that within his own circle of advisers, those advisers which are at the disposal of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is wide difference of opinion, and the Association of Engineers, through one of their spokesmen in London the other night, indicated very clearly that in their belief, speaking for a large number of industrialists in this country, a case had been made out for the kind of inquiry which Mr. McKenna had in mind. It seems to me that it is insufficient for the Government to turn round and say that the effect would be unsettling. The unsettling effects of unemployment and distress, the loss of markets, and all the rest of it, are with us; and my view is that if we make the inquiry on proper lines, avoiding, for the purpose in mind, inflation on the one hand or deflation on the other, and confining it to the technique of this central institution, we may arrive at facts of first-class importance to British industrial recovery, and in that way may open out rather brighter times for, at all events, the million people who are still unfortunately unemployed.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I had no idea that this particular subject was to be raised this afternoon, but I do congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on bringing up these two important matters. I do not propose to deal with the first point he raised, with regard to the Civil Service. He knows far more about the Civil Service than I have the opportunity of knowing, but nobody can do anything else but praise the Civil Service for what it does in this country. His second point is, indeed, a most technical one, but it is a most important one, and is affecting this country
probably far more than the Committee realise. As he says, this is no party question. Strange to say, only to-day, although, as I say, I did not know the matter was going to be raised, I put down two questions which really affect what my right hon. Friend has said. In the first question I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
if he can state the pre-War currency per head of the population and the currency per head of the population on the 31st March, 1927 (notes and gold).
I have not yet received the answer to that question because, naturally, it involves a large number of figures which could not be given on the Floor of the House. My second question was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
as the recent Whitsuntide demands brought the Treasury note issue to within about £1,000,000 of the fiduciary maximum if he will consider setting up a committee to consider this technical financial problem.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in reply to this question it was not unusual for the maximum fiduciary issue to reach near the limit during the holiday period. That is quite right, but I do not think that the maximum has ever before been so near the actual limit in the Whitsuntide holidays, and that makes one feel that this question should be looked into and be the subject of an inquiry. The Cunliffe Committee, which reported in 1918 and again in 1919, stated, as far as I remember, that the fiduciary issue should be settled after there had been £150,000,000 of gold reserve in the Treasury for a certain period, the actual period not being mentioned. To the best of my recollection, in December, 1924, the Treasury had a little difficulty in regard to the maximum limit of the fiduciary issue, and the actual amount went within £45,000 of the maximum limit, and I think that was after the transfer of a very large block of Bank of England notes to the support of the fiduciary issue. The fiduciary issue was fixed, as far as I remember, at £248,000,000 for 1925, the limit for 1926 was £247,000,000, and the limit for this year is £246,000,000.
I contend that my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh is correct in saying that the system is not
elastic enough. We have the experience of the Dawes' Report. So far as I remember, the Dawes' Report, which set up a central bank in Germany, gave elasticity to the fiduciary issue in Germany. There was to be a fixed amount, and if the fiduciary issue went beyond a certain amount the central bank had to pay a commission on or an increased interest on the amount by which it exceeded the actual limit. The federal reserve system, also, is more elastic than our Bank of England process, and the American is almost the same organisation as was set up under the Dawes Report. The question comes down, really, to the credit of the country, and the amount of credit a country can stand without inflation. I do not want inflation, but I like elastic credit. We have got to consider even the arrangement that was made recently between the Governor of the Bank of England and the President of the Bank of France. I contend that was a welcome arrangement, because it meant closing up the War debts between the Bank of England and the Bank of France, but the position affected our credit very considerably. After the arrangement had been made, France purchased about £11,000,000 of gold from ourselves or the United States of America, and that affected our credit. Anybody who watches the price of Treasury Bills will know that the price went up about 10s. after France started to purchase gold in this country. In regard to the United States of America, when severe depression was experienced there in 1921, and there were a large number of unemployed, I understand that a certain amount more gold was used, and eventually that gold gave more credit and work and employment expanded into the United States. Employment was found for the men and women who had been out of work. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh, I think there is a matter for inquiry, especially as Mr. McKenna, the Chairman of the Midland Bank, differs from Mr. Goodenough, the Chairman of Barclay's Bank. Both these gentlemen are men of experience in regard to matters of credit, the fiduciary note issue, and technical subjects like that, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set up a Committee to go into this technical subject.
I will leave this question now, however, because I feel it is almost too technical to debate in Committee here, and turn to a few questions in regard to this Estimate. First of all, I notice that the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act expended £5,736. The total amount allowed by the House of Commons for trade facilities was £75,000,000; according to the last White Paper the actual amount was £74,251,000, and that will be gradually reduced. I note that there are nine officials attached to that department of the Treasury, and that the legal expenses are £4,500. Why are these legal expenses necessary? What are the losses in connection with the Trade Facilities Act? What is the position of the Newfoundland Paper and Power Company? How is the large amount of £9,500 representing appropriations-in-aid made up? I should very much appreciate it if, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary comes to reply, he will give me a few more details with regard to this Trade Facilities Act.
I come next to the offices of the Cabinet Committee, the Imperial Defence Committee and Civil Research. These three departments are lumped in one as far as the details are concerned. The total amount of expenditure is £18,679, with 42 officials. I am unable to gather how many officials are attached to the Committee of Imperial Defence, but I remember hearing a speech made in another place by Lord Oxford and Asquith on the 22nd, March, 1927, in regard to national expenditure, and he stated as follows:
I refreshed my memory to-day as to what was the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence. When I was first actively concerned in it, 1906–7, the staff consisted of one secretary, two assistant secretaries, one confidential clerk, and one boy. Four men and a boy was the total staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence who were engaged in thinking and planning and performing all these functions which my noble Friend so eloquently described. I have the figures now for 1913—seven years later, and the year before the War broke out. In 1913 the staff had reached the following dimensions: One Secretary, three assistant-secretaries instead of two, one confidential clerk, one military clerk, one assistant-clerk (who may have been the boy who by this time had grown up). In other words, we started with four men and a boy and we finished up with a staff of seven.
That was the view of Lord Oxford and Asquith. Perhaps my right hon. Friend
could state how many officials are now attached to the Committee of Imperial Defence, and perhaps he would kindly give to the Committee the actual staff attached to the Treasury on the 31st March, 1914, and the cost of that staff. I would appreciate very much a reply to these questions in due course, and I feel confident that if an inquiry could be set up as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh it would be an asset, and a good thing for this country.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I desire to associate myself with the proposals which have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). With regard to the second question which he raised, I wish to put forward the matter from a slightly different angle. Recent experience of this country has shown how dependent we are upon movements abroad with regard to our credit and our financial position. It is only a few weeks since there was a considerable flutter in the money market when it was known that several millions of gold were being withdrawn from this country. This incident was described by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). The bank rate, instead of falling, remained stationary, and conditions generally became more stringent. As a result any fillip that might have been given to business with the season tended not to come into being, business became stagnant, and trade and industry generally were handicapped in a way that always occurs when something in the way of deflation takes place.
When the mystery came to be revealed and it was found that the reason for this withdrawal of gold was due to the French Government, to some extent the feeling of anxiety was checked. But. I would suggest that so far from being a relief, the business and the banking world ought to have felt even greater apprehension because in my view it is not actually what was done, but the potentiality of what might be done that gave the greatest alarm. I understand that the French Government have in this country balances of over £100,000,000 sterling. Whether that be right, or an exaggeration I do not know, but at any rate they have a very considerable amount and, of course it is open to them at any time to withdraw a considerable part, if not the whole, in
the form of gold. That case does not stand alone. All over the continent of Europe and other parts of the world, there are countries which are considering the obtaining of a larger amount of the yellow metal. Only recently India has determined, in effect, to go upon the gold basis, and although the Government of that country have not decided to obtain a large stock of gold up to the present, they may any day come to a decision that they desire a large gold reserve. What is true of India is also true of other countries.
This is an exceedingly serious problem, more particularly for this country, which is so dependent upon exports, and therefore upon some price level which can remain stable and can be relied upon. In this connection I am reminded of the case of Egypt. It is essential to the people of Egypt that the River Nile should keep up a certain level and in consequence of that the Egyptian people recognise that they must at all costs preserve a reasonable flow of water in the Nile. I remember not long ago when there was some question in this House of threatening the Egyptian people with a loss of water supply it became a matter of first-class importance. At once the Egyptian people proceeded to take action to obtain assurances that that threat would not be carried into effect. In this country the very life-blood of trade and commerce depends upon maintaining a stable level in prices which depend upon the quantity and the flow of gold. That is essential to trade, and if the unemployment problem from which we are suffering at the present time is to be remedied, it is essential that we should get control of these supplies of gold.
In the days before the War this country was the world centre of finance, and the financial policy adopted here was the one which ruled throughout the world, and we had our own say in the matter. The situation, however, has changed since the War, and now we cannot control the whole situation ourselves. While going all the distance which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh has outlined, I should like to go one step further, and I ask the Government what steps they are proposing to take to rationalise the supply of gold. When I say "the supply," I do not mean the production of gold, but I mean the supply in
the various countries. When I use the term "rationalise," I do not mean to ration, but I use the word in the sense it was used at the Economic Conference at Geneva. There it was pointed out that to secure world production for the benefit of the peoples of the world, it was necessary to rationalise industry, and in the same way I suggest it is necessary for all countries, and particularly for this country, to rationalise the supply of gold.
It will be remembered that several years ago at the Financial Conference which was held at Genoa it was proposed that the Bank of England should organise a conference of the central banks of the world, and that at that conference should be discussed the best method of doing what I now call rationalising the supplies of gold with a view not merely to stabilising the exchange, but to stabilising the level of prices throughout the world. I suggest that the time has come, in fact it is much overdue, when that conference, for which a desire was expressed several years ago at Genoa, should now be brought into operation. It is possible that in answering this point the Government will say that such a conference is, in fact, actually proceeding, because today in New York, I understand, there is a conference of representatives of the banking systems of the United States, France, Germany, and of this country, meeting in conclave on this very question. But, in my view, that private and unofficial conference is not adequate because it is not representative of all the principal countries in the world, and more especially it is not adequate because it is purely private. I agree it may be desirable that we should have some private preliminary conference, but it is of the utmost importance that you should follow that up by a public official conference in order that these problems may not only be discussed, but that the findings, and the main grounds for them, should become public property so that the agreements which have been reached£it may be originally in private conferences£may ultimately be put into concrete and public form, so as to be available when the time comes.
I desire to raise one other point besides those which have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh. I wish to refer to the method of keeping some of the accounts in relation
to the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund is a highly technical proceeding which the general public have an idea is of a fairly simple character. The general public are of the opinion that the Sinking Fund is the amount by which the National Debt is reduced each year, that is to say, the amount by which the liabilities of this country are discharged. I have known even financial experts in this House who took that view. For example, some £40,000,000 was paid to the Sinking Fund last year and people are of the opinion that the National Debt of this country was discharged to the extent of £40,000,000 last year.

Sir F. WISE: The amount was £23,000,000.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, I am wrong, the amount was £23,000,000. The impression that the whole of that went to the discharge of the liabilities under the Sinking Fund is entirely erroneous. The actual fact is that for many reasons it was far less. We have, in the first place, various specific Sinking Funds, and in recent years the number of these Funds has increased. If hon. Members refer to the Return issued by the Treasury, it will be found that some £40,000,000 or so are specific Sinking Funds, and the balance is nominally paid for the discharge of general debt. In the old days when Sinking Funds were first introduced, the idea was prevalent that all you had to do was to create a Sinking Fund and that automatically proved beneficial, although at the same time you created new debts to an even greater extent than the Sinking Fund you put on. I think that idea has been exploded in theory, but to some extent in practice it lingers on; for last year in particular, in spite of the Treasury Returns, this balance was certainly not available for a general reduction of debt, for a far larger amount of new debt was created to take its place. I am quite prepared to admit that it would not be possible to make a Sinking Fund which exactly accorded with the public belief so long as—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member's argument, but I am not quite sure whether he is not now criticising the various Statutes which establish the
Sinking Fund. I should like to know whether that is so, or whether what he is criticising has something to do with the administrative discretion of the Treasury.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was leading up to that in a few moments, and I think you will find that I am entirely in order, for I propose to deal with the form of certain items which are included in the Treasury figures. I am not criticising the way in which the Sinking Fund is administered, but a certain method of accounting which is producing the wrong impression as to what the Sinking Fund actually is. I was proceeding to say that it would not be possible to get a Sinking Fund which exactly accorded with the public idea of a Sinking Fund unless you were entirely to change the whole method of keeping accounts in this country, and to substitute for the receipts and payments accounts which we have at the present time, a system which would correspond more nearly to a balance sheet and a profit and loss account. I do not deny that there might be certain advantages in that, but I think the disadvantages would be far greater. I think, however, that it would be possible within our present method of receipts and payments to bring the Sinking Fund much more nearly into line with popular interpretation. Leaving the matter of fresh borrowing for fresh objects definitely outside, there are three matters in which it seems to me that our present method of dealing with accounts is undesirable. In the first place, there is the question of the ideal which we ought to be set before ourselves, of keeping the total face value of the debt as near as possible in correspondence with the amounts claimable on redemption. The standard case where that proposition is not observed is that of the Five per Cent. War Bonds redeemable at 105. The face value that obtains now, instead of being the amount of redemption of 105, is 100, and that leads to a considerable error in the total value of the debt. The procedure is this. Sup posing the stock were issued at 95, redeemable at 100, it would appear in our account of debt as 100 and the 5 per cent. premium on repayment would be shown properly in the account. As, however, it is issued at 100, redeemable at 105, it still only appears at 100, the whole amount of redemption not being shown in any way in the account. In that way,
at the present time, the position of the country is rendered in the account more favourable than it actually is to the amount of £20,000,000.
The next point to which I want to draw attention is I think in some ways of still more importance. That is the matter of the Savings Certificates. I think it is highly important that the interest which is actually debited in the year òught to correspond as nearly as possible with the interest accruing in the year, but when you come to the Savings Certificates that is not at all the case. Let me first of all quote figures. The estimate of interest which is going to be charged to this country during the year 1927–1928, on account of Savings Certificates, is about £9,000,000. The estimate of the actual interest that will accrue upon outstanding Savings Certificates during the year is as much as £24,000,000, so that there is a discrepancy of no less than £15,000,000 between the two amounts. In the previous year the amount estimated was £7,000,000. The amount actually spent was £12,000,000, and the amount accruing was probably not far short of £24,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, made special play of the fact that the amount expended, £12,000,000, on this account, was considerably in excess of the amount that had been estimated of £7,000,000, and yet even the full amount spent was in fact millions below the amount that actually accrued. The reason for this discrepancy is as follows: The amount which is actually debited against the interest, is the amount of interest on these Savings Certificates which are paid off during the year, that is to say, only those Savings Certificates which are cashed come into the account at all, and in some the interest is for one year, in some for five years, some for 10 years or possibly more; whereas the actual amount that accrues is one year's interest on the whole Savings Certificates outstanding. Of course I know that if the Savings Certificates were a constant amount, and if roughly the same number were being bought each year as were paid off, the discrepancy would not be very great, but, as the amount of Savings Certificates is rapidly increasing, we are constantly debiting ourselves with far smaller amounts of interest than actually accrue during the year. If the holding of
Savings Certificates increased and a very considerable part of our National Debt took the form, as it well may, in years to come, of National Savings Certificates, we should be living entirely in a fool's paradise in this matter. In one of the Debates, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, I had the good fortune to have the presence of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) when speaking on this point, and I am glad to say that he entirely agreed with me. He suggested that there should be an increase of the Sinking Fund to the amount of £10,000,000 to meet this matter. I do not suggest that now, because I should be out of order in doing so, but I do want to point out that our method of keeping accounts in this matter is not a very satisfactory one. It is not easy I know to arrive at a satisfactory method, although I think a more desirable method could be found. For instance, whereas a Savings Certificate is now bought for 16s., I do not think it unreasonable if it was put down at 20s. from the time it was bought, in much the same way as a Treasury bill would be handled. If it were done in that way here you would get something much more near to the correct amount than is done at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may not think that a good plan, but I hope he will, at any rate, consider whether some other method could be adopted which would correspond more nearly to the actual facts as to the amount of interest really accruing than is done at the present time.
I have taken up a great deal of time over this, and I, therefore, will not deal at any length with my third point. It is the issue of loans at a discount, and I am very pleased to see that it met with the strong condemnation of both the Majority and the Minority Reports of the Colwyn Committee. I hope the Treasury will very seriously consider rigidly refusing to adopt this method of issuing loans in the future
To sum up what I have been trying to say. On the first point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have been asked to take steps to rationalise the gold supply of the world. I would like to go a little further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh who has asked them to set
up a Committee to consider the management of the gold of this country. I want them, in addition, either to call this year, or to get the Bank of England to call, a world conference to consider steps to rationalise the gold supply of the world. Secondly, I want them to take steps to alter the accounting so that the Sinking Fund shall be brought more nearly into accord with the idea of a Sinking Fund in the minds of the business men of this country.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Before I say a very few words in regard to the question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) I would like to say, in a single word in passing, that I am very cordially in agreement with the views just expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in regard to the accounting of Savings Certificates. I do not want to make more than a passing reference to that question, but, if I may be respectfully allowed to say so, I think he has raised a point of very considerable accounting importance, and I would like to associate myself with what he has just said. In regard to the questions raised by my right hon. Friend who opened this Debate, I would say, on behalf of myself and, I think, of other Members on this side of the Committee, that we are exceedingly grateful to him, not for the first time by any means, for raising a question of great public importance on a financial Debate. The questions which he raised, as I understand them, were mainly two. He raised certain very important questions in regard to the personnel, management, and internal administration of the Civil Service. He raised another very important question in regard to our whole currency position, and more particularly in regard to the gold position in relation to the credit of the country. I desire to say a very few words on those two topics, and to ask one or two questions on another topic in which I, myself, am interested in relation to Treasury administration.
First of all, in regard to the Civil Service, I wish to associate myself to the full with the very cordial tribute which my right hon. Friend paid to the higher officials of the Civil Service. I suppose
there is no other present Member of the House who as a Member of the House has had a wider or a more continuous experience than I myself have had of contact with the heads of the permanent Civil Service. As Chairman for some years of the Estimates Committee, as a member of that Committee for more years than I like to remember, and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have a very grateful sense of the way in which the higher officials of the Civil Service carry out their duties. I join with my right hon. Friend in paying a very great cordial tribute of admiration for the very high qualities which those public servants possess. But, apart from this tribute of admiration, my right hon. Friend raised a question with which I do not know that I am in quite such cordial agreement. He raised the whole question, incidentally, it may be, of the leakage of the Civil Service, that is to say, of a tendency which he thought he discerned for some of the more prominent members of that great Service to find occupation outside the Service, and he, very naturally, inquired what the reason for that might be. As far as my own experience is concerned, I should be inclined to say that the danger of that leakage is not very great. I know that from time to time, as, of course, has recently been the case, resignations take place which are of palpable disadvantage to the public service. We do, from time to time, lose from the public service servants whom we can ill afford to lose, for reasons which are very intelligible, because they are naturally tempted away by great positions offered to them outside.
I do not, however, feel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh that that is really a very general or a very serious danger, and for this good reason, that, as I understand the matter, the qualities which are demanded of the first-rate civil servant are qualities wholly unlike those which, as a rule, are required in business houses. The man who makes a good civil servant has not, speaking generally, the same calibre of mind as the man who is successful in commerce or in business. I quite admit that there are exceptions to that rule, exceptions of which we have had several recent and
notorious illustrations; but I do not share the apprehension, if it be an apprehension, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh, that that is likely to be a danger which we need very seriously contemplate in the future. I should like to add this word, that I most sincerely desire that the qualities which are demanded of our civil servants should be different in kind from those which are demanded in our business houses, for, if there is one thing on which I am more keen than on almost anything else, it is that the Civil Service should not be involved in business undertakings, and that, therefore, those upon whom the Government rely as principal servants should not be people of the qualities which are required in business houses. My right hon. Friend went on to develop a question which is, if possible, of even greater importance. I refer to the currency position—this question of the gold standard. I am not going to involve myself so deeply as any of my hon. Friends who have spoken this afternoon in that most difficult of all questions—

Sir F. WISE: Do not be afraid!

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I am afraid. I remember the warning that, apart from love, there is nothing which has driven so many people into lunatic asylums as currency problems, and I have no desire to go into one of those asylums before my time. Therefore, I am not going as deeply as my hon. Friends have gone into that very controversial question, but I should like to say just one or two words, particularly on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). He referred to the problem of the currency mainly in its relation to the credit of the country. I want to associate myself to the fullest possible extent with what he said on that point primarily, because everybody knows that there is no problem which must be engaging every day the attention of the Treasury so seriously as the problem of credit and of the maturities which are immediately ahead of us.
Only a month or two hence, in October next, we shall be involved in maturities of £112,000,000 for 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. War Bonds. Then, six
months later, in March, 1928, the Treasury will have to face £66,000,000 of repayments of 3½ per cent. War Loan and 4½ per cent. Treasury Bonds. In the course of the summer of next year, 1928, no less a sum than £443,000,000 will come up for repayment for 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. National War Bonds. In the course of the following year, 1929, the Treasury will have to face repayments amounting to £46,000,000; and so on. That is a very short statement of the facts in regard to the immediate maturities ahead of us, and, in the face of these imminent maturities, I regard this problem of currency as of super-eminent importance. Therefore, I am exceedingly grateful, and I think the whole House and the whole country should be grateful, to the right hon. Gentleman who acts as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, for bringing the matter to the attention of the House of Commons this afternoon, and I desire, with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, to press for the appointment of the Committee to which he refers.
In saying that, I want to guard my-self against expressing perfect agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford on the question which is at issue between two such eminent bankers as Mr. Goodenough and Mr. McKenna. Far be it from me to decide between two prophets of such eminence, but I will frankly confess that my own Conservative disposition is rather on the side of Mr. Goodenough than on the side of Mr. McKenna. I am sorry to disagree even to that extent—I very rarely do disagree—with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford; but he must be satisfied, and I hope he will be satisfied, if I associate myself with him in pressing for the appointment of this Committee, because, after all, we want to ascertain, and we want the public to be informed of, the opinion of an expert committee on a question of this first-rate importance. I am, myself, a little apprehensive of getting on to the slippery slope of inflation. I know that the word "inflation" is one which is capable of many interpretations. On none of those interpretations am I going to venture this afternoon, but I am a little apprehensive of anything in the nature of artificial credit. Still,
I do not want to press that view too strongly this afternoon. My hon. Friend and I have been going into the matter together recently in some detail, and, although we do not see entirely eye to eye on the question which is at issue between these two eminent bankers, we are completely in accord in pressing upon the Government the importance of the appointment of the Committee to which the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee referred earlier this afternoon.
There is only one other point on which I should like to hear a word from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not make it by way of criticism, but I would like a word of information in regard to the expenditure for which the Treasury is responsible under Sub-head G.1 of Vote 4. I refer to the expenditure of £15,250 a year on the War Histories. I make no criticism of that, but I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether some reduction of that staff is not possible, and whether some amalgamation or distribution of the work performed by it would not be possible. We have, as probably the Committee are aware, an exceedingly competent librarian at the Foreign Office—himself an historian of no mean distinction—who, I should have thought, might have been able to add to his duties, though these are not light at present, some of those which are performed by members of the staff in question. I do not know—my right hon. Friend will be able to tell me—whether that staff does draw upon the assistance of any of the other permanent civil servants, such as the librarians of the great offices, and particularly the librarian of the Foreign Office, but I want to put my question in a rather more general form. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any possibility of redistributing this work, possibly among other Government offices, or, possibly, among members of the Universities. There will be many research students at the Universities who. I think would probably be more than disposed to perform a good many of these services without any gratuity from the State at all, but simply in return for the facilities which they would obtain from the State for research into matters in
which they are themselves historically interested. I throw that out as a suggestion. The sum involved is not a very large one, but I should like to have some information from my right hon. Friend on that point.

Mr. GILLETT: I should like, in the first place, to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on the question of the Sinking Fund. When the matter came before the Public Accounts Committee recently, I asked Sir Otto Niemeyer a few questions on the principle underlying the system that is now followed, and I confess that the answers I received only showed how much more complicated the question is than I thought. For one thing, Sir Otto Niemeyer informed me that, in the came of War Savings Certificates, the increase to which my hon. Friend referred, and which, it seems to me, might very well have been looked upon as capital expenditure, is looked upon as interest. On the other hand, I take it that, if stock is issued at 80 and is repayable at 100, that appears in the books of the Exchequer at par, and the difference between the 80 and the 100 is looked upon as capital expenditure. When we compare these two cases, there does not really seem to be any reason why the Treasury should deal with War Savings Certificates in a different way from stock isued at under par. On the other hand, I understand that there were certain cases during the War in which stocks were issued repayable at 105, and, speaking from memory—I did not know that my hon. Friend was going to raise this point—I think that those stocks are also treated as if they were repayable at 100. Here, therefore, we have a case in which we talk about the debt as being only 100, when some day the nation will have to repay it at 105. I think it is obvious that this is a question which might very well be looked into, and in regard to which we might urge upon the Treasury the desirability of seeing whether it is not possible to get figures more closely approximating to the exact amount of the liability that the nation has at present to meet.
I want also to support the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) for the appointment of a committee to consider
the question brought forward by Mr. McKenna, and I should like to express the hope that, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester, if a committee is appointed the scope of it will be enlarged to include the world's supply of gold. I venture to speak on this subject in spite of the warning issued to us by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) that there is danger of lunacy in considering these questions. The fewness of the number of Members present induces me to go forward, as the danger incurred will be so limited, even if we do consider the subject for a short time. The proposal made by my right hon. Friend to-day is much more important, and might have more far-reaching effects upon the wellbeing of the country than many of the points over which we are going shortly to spend a good deal of time in considering the Finance Bill. For instance, the point Mr. McKenna has raised is infinitely more important than whether we are going to impose a small duty on lace, or many other questions which excite interest and enthusiasm in the House. I suppose no man in the country has had such a unique experience as Mr. McKenna. It is true we have other chairmen of big banks, but none of them has had the experience of national finance that Mr. McKenna has had, and the danger of the City outlook is that your City financier looks on this matter purely from what might be termed the financial standpoint, whilst really there are always other interests that have to be considered. Anyone who has occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer can never go back to quite the same outlook on finance as the man who has spent the whole of his life in the City looking at his problems only from the financial standpoint. Therefore, it seems to me this House is fully justified in considering very carefully the proposal made by my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for York said he had a great fear of inflation, and we are justified in having that fear, but I think we ought also to bear in mind the other side of the question. I take it that while Mr. McKenna suggested that there might be a danger of inflation, what he is afraid of is, whether at the present time we are not actually doing the reverse process, and that when industry shows
a little progress the financial system that is in force to-day keeps constantly putting the brake upon an expansion which might otherwise take place. Mr. McKenna bases his argument on the experience of the United States, where the deposits in the banks from 1922 to 1926 have increased by something like £800,000,000, while in this country there was actually a decrease of over £100,000,000. Mr. McKenna asks whether there is anything in our banking system that is having a deleterious effect upon our industry today. He also suggests that the federal reserve system of America lends itself more easily to providing the necessary credit than does the system in vogue in this country. The American system does not require such a large amount of gold backing for their notes. Any extension of the note issue of the Bank of England is followed up by providing the same amount of gold, but in the United States all that is required is 40 per cent. of gold behind the federal note issue, and there is even a margin allowed so that if at any time a bank has not placed the requisite amount of gold behind the issue of notes, instead of the increase being prevented, the bank is allowed to pay a certain percentage of interest upon the amount of notes that have been issued beyond the 40 per cent., and in that way there is an expansion of notes upon a scale easier aid simpler than we have at present in connection with our own banking system.
The other point on which, I think, the American system differs from ours is that the facilities the banks have of discounting their bills make it easier for them to obtain money for trade. Mr. McKenna's plea for the revision of air system has been opposed by Mr. Goodenough, who holds an equally important position. I should not wish to say which I think is right of these two distinguished bankers, but I think the Chancellor would be doing a great disservice to the City if he decides that the investigation should not take place. Having some connection with the City, I would much sooner have the whole matter investigated than simply say it is not desirable to look into a matter which is arousing a good deal of public interest. People naturally say bankers do not desire to have the system looked into because they are doing very well out of it themselves and do not wish to see it altered. It seems to me the banking
position is much stronger if you say you are quite prepared to have the whole matter investigated. In the religious world we have great churches which have propounded religious beliefs, and when some heretic has come forward and urged that a principle of their religion was false, the churches in the past have taken refuge in saying it is not desirable to consider it, but all the same the heretics have gone forward and in time it has been per. haps discovered that these principles were false. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor will not think the banking world is anxious to hide itself behind the formula "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be," but will be willing to test these principles, because nothing is going to suffer in the religious or the financial world if the principles on which we are working are at times tested. I fully agree that when we look at the American position there are one or two extraordinary things connected with it. Of course they have received a large amount of gold which, if it had come into this country, would probably have had the same effect in expanding the deposits in banks as it seems to have had in the United States. If gold came into this country we could have gold inflation. We had it before the War for many years to a small extent, and even the hon. Member for York would probably have no fear about it. Inflation is not always necessarily an evil.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I should not have any fears about it because it was based on gold.

Mr. GILLETT: And yet the effect upon our industrial system might be just as prejudicial as the creation of a large number of notes. The second reason I think we might have this investigation is that towards the end of this year the position in regard to currency notes will probably be reviewed, and that would seem a suitable time to have the whole question of the banking system reviewed. The "Times," in an article in January, supported the plea, and in February, 1925:
Mr. BOOTHBY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to secure the early assembly of an international financial conference to consider the question of putting into operation the Genoa Resolutions on currency and with a view to the establishment, by agreement, of the currency systems of the world upon a sound, economic and stable basis?
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Genoa Resolutions contemplated a meeting of the central banks as a necessary preliminary to any monetary convention. I hope that the occasion for such a meeting will arise before long; but I do not think the moment is yet opportune."—[OFFCIAL, REPORT, 24th February, 1925; col. 1735, Vol. 180.]
It is only 2½ years since the right hon. Gentleman gave that answer, and I would suggest to him that possibly the moment has now arrived. One thing in connection with the American position which has not been referred to is the instalment buying that is going on in that country—what we, should call, I suppose, the hire-purchase system. I understand nothing like it has been seen in this country, or I suppose in any country in the world. It seems to me it must have some effect upon the financial position, but whether it means any kind of inflation of credit, I do not know.
There is another point on which I want to lay stress. I desire to appeal to the Government for some statement in regard to the gold position. We have had the recent French withdrawal of gold from London. The policy of the French Government is one of the most amazing things we have seen. Many nations are thinking what a great thing it would be if only they could get back their currency to the old standard, but the French Government are deliberately preventing speculators, whose policy would be to force back the value of the franc nearer and nearer to the old pre-War standard. I understand the £100,000,000 that the French Government are holding in this country, and in New York, is the result of their determination not to allow the franc to alter its position.
We have returned to the gold standard on the supposition that other nations, if I may so put it, were going to play the game. The success of the gold standard depends on certain well-known and well-laid-down principles. You do not expect that a country is going to take gold from the bank in this country unless the exchange is in their favour. Then you come face to face with this emergency. The Bank of France suddenly buys gold from the Bank of England and the whole of the money market in this country is altered prejudicially as far as we are concerned. We find, that instead of the Bank of England rate going down, as was hoped, the rate for discount goes up.
It has already, I suppose, cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer between £200,000 and £300,000 more in regard to the increase in the price of Treasury bills, and, at the same time, the public have been deprived of what would have been the advantage of cheaper money if the bank rate had actually gone down. That is all due to the decision of the French people.
What the City would like to know is, whether this withdrawal of gold was carried out with the knowledge of the English Government, and, if not, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made any representations to the French Government, pointing out how very detrimental this action has been to the money market on this side and the effect it is having upon us. The serious point, it seems to me, in connection with this matter is this. Supposing the French Government had said, "Our needs are so great that we must have the gold. I must buy your gold. I am going to buy it, cost what it may," the whole of the gold standard in this country might be endangered. This case is largely governed by very special needs quite outside the ordinary rules governing the position of the money market. I shall be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say whether anything has been done by the Government or whether any negotiations have taken place between the English and the French Governments.
I think there is every justification for the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester that the whole of the gold position should be very carefully considered. It may be that the central banks are considering the question to-day, but, as is said in the City of London, all these questions are wrapped in such a veil of mystery that we are never allowed to know anything. The only thing we know is, that all of a sudden something has taken place, and we go on wondering what the great gods of finance are doing, and why Mr. So-and-So has gone to New York, and why Mr. So-and-So has gone to Paris. That is all the information the money market is allowed. Professor Cassel has drawn attention to this question and quoted figures, which appeared in the "Times" recently, in which it was estimated that
the gold supplies of the world after 1929 would be about £5,000,000 less per annum than they have been previously. It is needless to point out to the Committee what effect that would have upon this country. We talk about all these very strange, complicated questions, as has been indicated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for York, as being exceedingly difficult, and yet, at the same time, they have a profound effect upon the well-being of our people.
I am not discussing at this moment whether the policy of deflation was bad or good, but there is no doubt whatever that it led to a large increase of unemployment in this country. There is no doubt that that is the reason which is inducing the French Government to take the line they are taking. They are not prepared to face the amount of unemployment and the effect upon their trade that such a policy would have. It seems to me that this is a matter on which we might be entitled to have a statement from the Government, telling us exactly what their policy is, first as regards the points raised by Mr. McKenna regarding the banking system of this country and, in the second place, as regards the whole question of gold and the relations of this country to the great central banks. You may say that the Bank of England is a private institution. We know perfectly well that the connection between the Bank of England and the Treasury is so close that we cannot imagine that any great policy dealing with the gold question would really be carried out by the Bank of England without consultation taking place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the officials of the Treasury. Therefore, I think, the Committee is justified in asking for a statement from the Government. The question of how far we are going to get a really satisfactory banking system is more important than almost any other financial question, and we must be assured that, having now returned to the gold standard, the system of working it, which is necessary to secure success, is going to be followed out as in the days before the War.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must apologise to the Committee for not having been able to be present during the whole of this Debate—I was compelled to absent myself on public business—and ask the indulgence,
of the Committee. I will endeavour to answer, as briefly as possible, some, at any rate, of the numerous, interesting, and speculative questions, some of a very large and general character, which have been raised in different parts of the Committee. I will deal, first of all, with the specific question raised by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He commented upon a series of appointments of high officials in the various Departments of State, particularly in the Treasury, which were announced a few weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me—although, I admit, he did not state his case with any extreme rigidity—to be arguing in favour of a departmental system of promotion as against the system of selection which is the one which, for some time past, has been adopted. One must ask oneself two questions. First of all, "Do you challenge the principle of selection?'' Secondly, "If you do not challenge the principle of selection, has it been applied wisely and fairly in recent instances?"
I cannot conceive how any effective challenge can be made to the principle of selection. I remember the late Lord Fisher used to deride the system of promotion by departmental seniority, and described it as the doctrine of "Buggins's turn." Ever since 1855, when the Civil Service was unified, the principle of selection for the higher appointments has been in creasingly applied, and there are at the present, moment, I think, only five Departments which are actually headed by civil servants who have risen from that particular Department. Long before the last batch of appointments was made, this principle of choosing at any given moment the best men for these very responsible posts had been extensively applied. Really, I think, it is no use arguing that this course acts harshly. After all, even in the case of the humble battalion, where the importance of the functions, in time of peace at any rate, cannot be compared with those of these Departments, there has not, certainly during the present century, been a commander of a battalion or second in command appointed except by selection, and by selection not confined necessarily to that battalion. If in a small organism like that, discharging functions which, however honourable, are so moderate in their status, you are going to enforce the system of selection in the
interests of efficiency, then I say a fortiori in the case of these great departmental organisations of the State it must be applied in all its force.
Let us see whether the selection has been fair and wise. No one has greater interest than the Government of the day in making a wise choice, because it directly affects the success of the various Ministers at the heads of Departments. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been in office himself, knows the valuable character of the services Which are rendered to the political heads of Departments by the highly trained and able permanent officials. Criticism has been made that the Secretary to the Treasury, with some small group of civil servants, has some dominating power in the matter. That is a delusion. The duty of the Secretary to the Treasury, among other duties, is to advise the Prime Minister upon the high appointments and the headships of the Departments. For that purpose he takes a general view of the service as a whole, and it is obvious that some mechanism for taking such a general view of the service as a whole and of the competing claims of different men in different Departments is an essential part of the functions of government. But the Secretary to the Treasury makes representations to the Prime Minister in many cases. The Prime Minister, as the First Lord of the Treasury, naturally consults with the Second Lord of the Treasury, who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and ministerial opinion is what rules in these matters.
The Prime Minister has been in office for the greater part of the last eight years with a very brief exception, and I have been in office for a long time, and we are perfectly capable of forming our opinion on the honest and faithful advice we receive from the Secretary to the Treasury on the matter. We desire to give the greatest possible assistance to the Ministers concerned. Of course, it is quite true the departure of distinguished civil servants to outside employment weakens us for the time being, and I shall certainly not say anything to diminish the seriousness of the loss which we have for the time being sustained by the departure of a man of such altogether outstanding abilities as Sir Otto Niemeyer, but, nevertheless, experience shows that the ability of the British Civil Service refills the gaps which are made from time
to time. Although we have had of recent years a stream of very able men passing from the Civil Service, I think, nevertheless, the quality of the Service has been maintained.
6.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman also criticised the departmental arrangements at the Treasury, which have been made incidentally to the present changes, and, in particular, the uniting under one head of the Controllerships of Finance and Supply; and he explained, quite correctly, the enormous importance of the duties of both these great departments. He asked how it would be possible for any one man, however able—and certainly it is a matter of common agreement that the officer appointed is one of the ablest servants under the Crown—could discharge all the admittedly difficult and technical duties of these two Departments. I should like to point out that when an officer is placed at the head of two Departments, and they both report through him to the Minister, the position of the heads of each of those Departments under that joint supervisor is by that very fact, in practice, considerably enhanced. Highly trained and experienced officers are at the heads of both these branches, neither of whom would at this moment have been a competitor for the undivided control of either of these Departments, and these officers will have a wider sphere and more direct action open to them than would be the case had one head been provided for each of the Departments. We have taken advantage of these changes to reduce by one the number of higher posts at the Treasury. One of the £3,000 a year posts has been obliterated by the changes which we have made. Naturally, that causes heartburnings, and is not the most agreeable course which could be taken, but we at the Treasury are sometimes criticised for the number of high posts which exist there. We are continually engaged in urging economy upon all the other Departments, and, seeing the possibility of making this curtailment or abridgement, I felt it my duty to recommend that the Treasury should set an example in this respect. As usual, the moment any step, small or large, is taken for economy, it finds most able objectors in every quarter of the House of Commons.
I do not say that this union of the Finance and Supply Branches will necessarily
be the final form of reorganisation. It might well be that a better grouping would be achieved if Supply and Establishments were joined together, and if Finance remained an entirely separate Department. That is a matter which we can examine later on, and the opportunity for making a change of that character was not open at the time. I think I have answered, or at any rate replied to, the different points which were raised on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope to convince him, not by argument alone, but by proof which will emerge from Session to Session, that the administration will have suffered no undue disadvantage from the changes which circumstances have enforced.
I now turn to what was described as the more important part of this discussion, namely, that relating to the general currency policy of Great Britain. Certainly, no topic can claim to be more important than that. I agree with all that was said on this point by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). The currency policy of tins country, or of any country, lies among the roots of its commercial and industrial prosperity, and of its social and economic well-being. I agree with him that it is very right and proper that the House of Commons should from time to time turn its attention to these matters. I agree with him also that it might well turn its attention to this question in preference to many of the quite minor issues which occupy so much of our Parliamentary time. The House of Commons is the master of its own fortunes in these matters and the number of days given to the discussion of finance in the course of the year is very large. I certainly do not complain that on one of those days, extremely complicated matters of such deep and pregnant importance should have been touched upon. Nevertheless, I am sure that the subject cannot be adequately dealt with in the course of a single speech or a single afternoon's Debate, and I shall not attempt to deal with these matters, except incidentally as suggested by some of the points which have been raised.
I must point out at the very outset of any reference to this subject, that you must pursue a clear, plain, unswerving policy in your finance; you must know what that policy is and stand by it. A
great many people try to get all the advantages of orthodoxy, and at the same tame to take all the small points which would occur to those who indulge in the luxury of heterodox opinions. Of course they are in favour of the gold standard. They say, "We are opposed to anything in the nature of inflation, but at the same time, something might be done to free us from the tyrannical domination of gold, and to make just a little upward movement of prices, or to advance credit a little more than the economic realities warrant." Then they proceed, in illustration, to point to all kinds of admitted hardships and disadvantages which we encounter in our journey through this wicked world. The policy of the Government is perfectly plain and simple. Our policy, like that of every other Government, or every other set of Ministers who have been responsible, has been the re-establishment of the gold standard, and the maintenance, as far as we can, of the stability of the currency and the stability of our international exchange. That policy has carried with it a steady correction to the dispersion of prices of various commodities.
I was going to quote figures to the Committee, but I will not do so this afternoon. I do not wish to enter into detailed argument here, but I would point out that nothing is more important to the well-being of the country than a correct valuation, in terms of money, of different forms of effort—the correct valuation for instance, to be put upon the effort which is required to make a loaf of bread, or a pair of silk stockings, or an ingot of steel, and so on. The spread of prices had been quite wide in the years immediately after the War, and gradually, as we have come into more harmonious and settled conditions of finance, dispersion has diminished.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The home market has remained restricted.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That has nothing whatever to do with the point which I was making. The point I was making was, that whether the home market is restricted or not, the commodities in that market are coming to a truer relation one with the other, and we believe they have been brought into that truer relation as the foreseen and declared result of our adoption of the gold standard
with its consequent stabilising effect both upon our money markets and on our exchange. In addition, as part of the policy which we have submitted, there is, of course, the great feature of the diminution in the cost of living, which, expressed in other terms, is an increase in real wages. There has been a substantial diminution in the cost of living, and it is going on at the present time, increasing the purchasing power of every household in the country. Such is the main effect on wages of the policy which we have pursued, and which at any rate tends to secure to the wage-earning masses a suitable means by which their wages are related to commodities. I believe if you adhere to that policy you will be acting in accordance with the most skilled advice. I do not believe for one moment that if my hon. Friend were at the head of a committee of advisers to the Government upon this policy, which he does not in principle dispute, he with all his undoubted authority on these questions, could outweigh the mass of very high and weighty financial expert authority which we have at our disposal and by which we have profited, and in following which we have advanced from one point to another.
The reasons for our policy have not been concealed. They have not been imparted to the House of Commons merely in speeches either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by other representatives of the Treasury. When the gold standard was re-established, I issued the Report of the Committee on the Currency and Rank of England Note Issues, which deals with the financial position and which sets forth in authoritative form the main outlines of the policy which we have pursued. That Report was signed by Lord Bradbury, Mr. Gaspard Farrer, Sir Otto Niemeyer, and Mr. Pigou. There it stands as a perfectly clear explanation of the general position which we adopted. It is quite true that our policy is not the only policy. It is true that there is an alter-native policy. There is the orthodox policy and the heterodox policy, and the heterodox policy claims another set of advantages some of which you may readily admit. That is the view put forward by Mr. McKenna, and also put forward to some extent, but in a different
form, by Mr. Maynard Keynes. I think those are the only two names of eminence in the financial world which can be quoted against the orthodox policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing. They claim that a managed currency should be established in place of the orthodox gold standard. In one form or another, and in the most seductive terms, they suggest that just a spice of inflation would be advantageous—so long as it is called by some other name. They look forward with favour, as I detected the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury doing this afternoon, to a period of rising prices, artificially produced at the cost of the consumer. I have here written down what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think he said that he would not mind, or he would like to see an increase of prices.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: indicated dissent

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be glad to have a confession of faith from the right hon. Gentleman. Is he, or is he not, a supporter of the gold standard policy? Is he, or is he not, an opponent of the policy of inflation?

Mr. GRAHAM: There need not be the slightest doubt at all on the matter. I am a most enthusiastic supporter of the return to the gold standard, but there is nothing inconsistent with that attitude in supporting the plea made by Mr. McKenna for an inquiry into a comparison between the basis of the banking system in this country and the federal reserve system in the United States.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Let me proceed step by step. I am glad to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. B. SMITH: There was never any doubt about it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entitled to make it quite clear where the right hon. Gentleman stands, and I am glad to hear that, on behalf of the Labour party, he stands definitely for the gold standard, because we have had some lamentable wobbling on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and also very different opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester West (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on that point. As far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned,
he makes no objection to being, as the phrase is, crucified on a cross of gold. He is now definitely nailed in that position.
If you are going to abandon the orthodox policy of the Government and adopt the policy which is advocated by Mr. McKenna, and in a much cruder ray by other people, I agree that other advisers ought to be chosen for the Government. It would be ridiculous to attempt to carry out a policy wholly different in principle from what we are pursuing—with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—unless it was in the hands of those who thoroughly believed in it. The right hon. Gentleman turned from the general to the particular aspect of the question connected with the difference between the system of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States and the credit system of this country. This was also in the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury. It is true that Mr. McKenna made a very interesting speech advocating our adoption of the American system. That system involves the adoption of the percentage basis of gold reserve in relation to the note issue. The percentage prescribed after the War in America was 40 per cent., but, of course, it has not been adhered to in practice because the great influx of gold into the United States has carried the gold percentage far above the 40 per cent. level, and it is now in the neighbourhood of 80 per cent.

Sir F. WISE: Germany!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot possibly conduct this argument if I have to reply to every technical and highly skilful interruption from every hon. Member. I am talking about the United States of America. We have been told that Mr. McKenna advocated that the Federal Reserve system should be adopted here. The Federal Reserve Bank is an American not a German institution, as the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) knows. The American percentage is laid down at 40 per cent., but the actual relation now is probably in the neighbourhood of 80 per cent. Neither Mr. McKenna, nor the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has ventured to say what would be the result if we should apply a 40 per cent. ratio in this country. The first result would not be an expansion of credit but
a sharp contraction of credit, because at the present time the proportion of our gold reserve to our Note issue, including both currency Notes and the Bank of England Note issue, is actually less than the 40 per cent. laid down in the United States, and far less than the figure of 80 per cent. under which they are working at the present time. Consequently, the adoption of Mr. McKenna's proposals, if we adopted the 40 per cent. ratio, would involve an immediate appreciable contraction in the supply of credit.
But there are other reasons which may be urged against our departure from our present system in favour of the American percentage system. If the 40 per cent. ratio of gold to Notes were in working order and actually adopted, the effect of any inflow or outflow of gold would produce an exaggerated result upon the supply of credit. You would have oscillations of a more violent character than you have under the somewhat more practical system which we have adopted. So far from having that beneficent expansion of credit, which is to help industry and trade, you would begin with a positive contraction. In the face of these arguments, which can be extended to far greater length and expressed far more forcibly than I could attempt this afternoon, I do not think the speech of a single banker is a sufficient reason for an inquiry into the whole of our banking arrangements. I am quite sure that the balance of authority is overwhelmingly against Mr. McKenna. We have had two bankers mentioned this afternoon, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Good-enough. Mr. McKenna is almost isolated in the very able and very interesting case he puts forward. I cannot see that any case has been established for an inquiry on the arguments he has used or on the fact that an authority so high has put forward the demand. After all, we have had the Cunliffe Committee and the Bradbury Committee, which inquired into the whole of this subject and produced unanimous reports. The advice of these able and scientific authorities is the basis of the financial policy of the Government. I should regret very much to take any step at this time which would indicate that changes in our policy were in contemplation or that we considered the matter an open question. We do not. For good or ill we have taken our course, right or wrong, and in these
currency matters it is essential to pursue a course with some consistency and per-sistency for a certain number of years. It may be that under another dispensation you will review these problems, but as far as this Parliament is concerned, I certainly cannot hold out any expectation that the policy we have declared and followed consistently will be modified in any essential particular.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is labouring under the misfortune of not having heard the whole of the Debate. The point I suggested was not what he would call an heterodox point. It was not an attempt to go back upon the decision of the gold standard, which I recognise is irrevocable. The point I suggested was orthodox, and in accordance with the policy of the country declared at Genoa. I ask is that policy going to be carried out?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I did not hear the hon. Member's speech for I know he is a very deep, though not always sound, thinker, on these matters, and his speeches are always full of interest and suggestion. I was just coming—and it is my last point—to the question of the Genoa Resolutions and to the gold movements which have recently taken place on the initiative of the Bank of France. The hon. Member who has just sat down asked me particularly about this. It is perfectly true that considerable withdrawals of gold, apart altogether from the gold which was deposited here in connection with the French Debt to the Bank of England, have taken place during the last month, and that these withdrawals of gold have prejudicially affected the money market and the rates at which the Treasury could borrow. It may even be held that they have exercised a deterrent effect upon the reduction of the bank rate and, consequently, on the improvement of trade. In the ordinary course, under the gold standard, the gold which moves is no more than the tip of the index which registers transactions which have taken place in the great economic sphere of the world; but in these particular gold movements we have had withdrawals which have no relation to the balance of trade, but which arose out of a particular monetary policy pursued for the time
being by one of our nearest neighbours, and that has produced some embarrassment and inconvenience in our affairs.
The hon. Member asks whether any representations were made by His Majesty's Government to the French Government. This is not a matter in which the Government acts as principal. It is a matter in which the Banks of France and England were principally concerned. Very long, and I am glad to say, very friendly discussions took place between the heads of these two great institutions and, for the present, at any rate, the movements by which we were affected un-favourably have ceased. But these movements most clearly show how important were the Genoa Resolutions which deal with the co-operation between the central banks of the different countries in respect of the use of gold reserves. It is essential to the working of the gold standard system that gold should be used to adjust trade balances and should not be allowed to be dissipated or employed for extraneous purposes unrelated altogether to the economic movements of the day. I regret very much that it has not yet been possible to hold a further conference to carry forward the policy which was indicated as being so necessary at Genoa, but we agree with every word that has been said in favour of developing that policy.
A conference has not yet come within the region of practical politics. The question asked by my hon. Friend two rears ago is just as pertinent now as it was then, and the answer which I shall give will be given with even greater sincerity. The urgency has become greater, but at any rate co-operation between the heads of the great banks has increased. At the present time the Governor of the Bank of England and the Governor or Deputy-Governor of the Bank of France are travelling to the United States to see Mr. Strong, of the Federal Reserve Bank, and at the same time the head of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht, is also travelling, I think in the same ship. So you will have, for the first time in this intimate manner, the highest financial authority in Germany, in France, in Great Britain and in the United States, in amicable consultation and co-operation. I cannot doubt that the difficult topics we have touched upon this afternoon will be among those which
will be illuminated by the discussions which will take place, but it would be altogether premature for us to enter upon, and I have no warrant for laying down, what results we may expect from those consultations.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise for the purpose of supporting the idea of a Committee of Inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us his particular point of view. He rests himself upon the fact that in the past there have been various Committees of Inquiry set up, and upon the findings of those Committees he now bases the Government's policy. It is fair to assume, from the reports of the various Committees, that rather different results were anticipated from the. policy then put forward. I cannot believe that the various Committees, in putting forward their reports, visualised the deplorable condition of our trade and industry as we now find it, or imagined for a moment that conditions of so difficult a character, which began in 1920, could have persisted up to now. We have tried all the recommendations that have been made. The Cunliffe Committee reported in favour of the policy of deflation which has been followed up to now. That policy of deflation immediately led to widespread unemployment and to that reduction of prices which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has commented upon rather with pleasure. When it was said that it had restricted the home markets, the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that that had nothing to do with the question. It seems to me that the policy of deflation had led to the widespread reduction of wages, aggregating something like £600,000,000 per annum. That £600,000,000 per annum wage reduction has certainly restricted the home market, and, as far as I can see, in spite of any lowering of prices, there has been no marked increase of production so far as the volume of men in employment is concerned.
The policy of deflation that was begun here on the recommendation of the Cunliffe Committee was carried out simultaneously with a policy of de United flation in the States I believe it is a fast that in the United States, as a result of deflation, the unemployed problem in about six months ran to about 6,000.000 men. It is said that. President Harding demanded the
dropping of the policy. From that time unemployment has been practically non-existent in the United States. Almost every nation in the world has had a better time than we have had here. There has been less unemployment even in Germany, in France and in Italy than we have had to face. It is an undoubted fact that our people have suffered in a terrible way. I cannot say whose policy it is that has resulted so, but certainly the fact remains that we have widespread poverty and that unemployment is a continuing factor, and as far as one can see the Government do not help to bring about any real change so far as the great mass of the unemployed are concerned.
It has been stated more than once that the immediate effect of the policy of the Cunliffe Committee was to increase the National Debt and to increase the value of the interest paid on the National Debt I want to refer to the effect of that upon the condition of the great mass of the people. I will illustrate my point in this way: The interest taken must come out of the general mass of annual production, for it cannot come from anywhere else. The takers of interest, who take from £310,000,000 to £320,000,000 a year, do not take it in actual money, and it must come out of the annual production. If, as we have been told, the effect of deflation was to increase the actual value of the National Debt and to increase the value of the interest from about 5 per cent. to the neighbourhood of 8½ per cent., then those who have taken interest on the National Debt have in later years taken an undue proportion of the annual production. I have tried to work it out in this way. Suppose that a man invested £1,000 in 1919, the interest being 5 per cent. On 1919 prices, for the £50 return which he gets for his investment he can obtain, say, 10 pairs of boots and 20 yards of cloth. Deflation takes place and prices fall, but the rate of interest remains stationary. The 5 per cent. is still 5 per cent., and his income from the £1,000 still remains £50. But in 1927, because of the fall in prices, instead of his being able to get only 10 pairs of boots he takes 20 pairs of boots, and instead of 20 yards of cloth he is taking much more. Where does it come from? If it comes out of the products—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I am trying to find how the
hon. Member's speech has any reference to the particular Vote we are discussing The hon. Member's speech appears to me to be more suitable for a Debate upon the Finance Bill.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was seeking to show why we should have a Committee of Inquiry into the financial methods of the Government. I was trying to show that there was a very close connection between the financial policy of the Government and the condition of the great mass of the people at the present time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member looks at the Vote, he will see that it relates to the salaries and expenses of the Department and has nothing to do with financial policy.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I would draw your attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to all the points which my hon. Friend has raised, and my hon. Friend is only putting counter arguments against those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with unemployment and all the other questions.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The whole of the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in reply to arguments put from this side of the Committee, and the subject was opened by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I was trying to point out that the fall of wages has been brought about simply because the commodities are not there, and that the fall of wages has been directly due to the policy pursued on the Cunliffe Committee's recommendation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But surely it would need legislation to alter the policy?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was arguing in favour of setting up a Committee of Inquiry. That has been pressed this afternoon by practically every Member who has spoken.

Mr. AMMON: The whole Debate has been based on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend that there should be a Committee of Inquiry appointed to go into the various matters. On that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others have spoken, and it has been a very wide Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a Debate on the whole financial policy of the Government as an excuse for setting up a Committee of Inquiry.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I try to clear up the matter? The Debate turns upon an administrative act of the Treasury, in refusing to entertain the idea of an inquiry into this matter, as suggested by Mr. McKenna. Therefore, I submit that on the Vote before us we are in every way entitled to review that administrative action. Prior to your taking the Chair the Debate dealt with many of the subjects with which my hon. Friend is dealing from another point of view. I respectfully suggest that in these circumcumstances my hon. Friend is quite in order.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): My recollection is that the greater part of my right hon. Friend's speech, as far as it dealt with the topics mentioned, was in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) as to whether a representative of the Treasury here met any representative of the French Government, in consequence of the inconvenience caused.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: On the point of Order raised by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That was only one element in the Debate. The main points of the Debate are the effects, as we see them, of an unduly restrictive policy, an argument to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted a good deal of attention. Accordingly, with respect, I think my hon. Friend is in Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Reference has been made to what took place before I occupied the Chair. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) was taking a very wide view of what was in order in a Debate on Supply, by reviewing the whole financial policy of the country.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was adducing an argument why there should be a further Committee appointed for the purpose of continuing the inquiry, and I am basing
that argument upon the position of our trade and industry. The question of purchasing power and prices has been raised, and I am arguing that it is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the policy of the Government has reduced prices. They may have reduced prices, but their policy has also reduced wages, and reduced wages to such an extent that, although the prices may be down, the people have not the wages with which to purchase commodities, even at the lower prices. That is the point I am making.
One main reason why the great mass of the people have less purchasing power is because the rentier class have increased their taking power more and more, because of the rise in the value of the rate of interest due to the lowering of prices, following a policy of deflation. In this country we have a most unfortunate state of affairs. It has been said from our own Front Bench that any policy of inflation would be wrong. A policy of inflation would leave me very cold. I am not a banker and I do not understand the abstract, question as an expert; but I look at it from the commonsense point of view. I read the reports of the great Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, and I find that they are proposing still further to curtail production, in spite of the fact that we have destitution, want and misery among millions of our people. There is a want of cotton goods. Nevertheless, Lancashire is proposing to curtail production. The mills are already on short time; the weavers are becoming poorer, the looms are standing idle, and the finest skill of the finest mechanics in the world is standing idle, while their productions are wanted. In the United States there is a proposal to cut down the production of cotton. There is a proposal actually to burn 4,000,000 bales of cotton, because there is no demand for cotton goods. We have passed subsidies in this House for the maintenance of irrigation works in Egypt, and yet we are told to-day that Egyptian cotton must be cut down in production.
What is the fatality that dogs the footsteps of the people of this country? What is the thing that spreads itself like a dread miasma throughout the lives of our people—want, poverty, unemployment,
machinery standing idle, commodities being destroyed? It seems to me that if the wit of man can find means whereby this dreadful thing can be obviated, even at the risk of snapping our fingers in the face of orthodox economists, and if we can pursue a policy which will give our people purchasing power, start the wheels of industry and provide us with an interregnum during which we can endeavour to discover the root cause of the evil from which we are suffering, it will be well worth the doing. The Government are faced with the problem of unemployment, and they make no move to solve it. They have no means of solving it. They put forward no proposals for the solution of the problem. When the Labour party were in office we were taunted regularly with the fact that we had not solved the problem of unemployment. We were told that what was wanted was peace in industry.

Peace in industry has not came, because of the constant reduction of wages and the growing impoverishment of our people, which can be traced back to the policy, pursued since 1920, of deliberate deflation. That policy has brought a lowering of the standard of life all round.

Could we not inquire whether the Cunliffe Committee did report the best and the wisest thing, or whether there might not have been some other recommendation that might have been carried out, or some other experiment that might have been tried, which would have dealt more effectively with the evil thing that curses the lives of so many of our people?

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £198,058, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 252.

DivisionNo. 212.]
AYES.
6.53 p. m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker, Walter
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cape, Thomas 
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, J. P.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.



Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bennett, A. J.
Buckingham, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Berry, Sir George
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Betterton, Henry B.
Burman, J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blundell, F. N.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Atkinson, C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Caine, Gordon Hall


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Campbell, E. T.


Balniel, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Christie, J. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Price, Major C. W. M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hilton, Cecil
Raine, Sir Walter


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cope, Major William
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.,
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rye, F. G.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandon, Lord


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jacob, A. E.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Drewe, C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kidd, J. (Linislthgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Ellis, R. G.
Kingersley, Major Guy M
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elveden, Viscount.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lieut,-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fermoy, Lord
Loder, J. de V.
Styles, Captain H. W.


Fielden, E. B.
Long, Major Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ford, Sir P. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lougher, Lewis
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tasker, R Inigo.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Templeton, W. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lumley, L. R.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tinne, J. A.


Gates, Percy.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward,Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hammersley, S. S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.
Withers, John James


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Womersley, W. J.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, B C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perring, Sir William George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pilcher, G.
Young, Rt Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford,
Preston, William
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,943,593, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Pubic Health Services, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows',
Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."—[Note: £6,500,000 has been voted on account."]

Mr. GROVES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I have put down this Amendment to reduce the Minister's salary by £100, and I think it is very modest on my part. There were, of course, many subjects that could be dealt with on this Vote, but, for the general convenience of the Committee, we have tacitly understood that the main attack from this side will be directed towards condemning the present administration of the West Ham Poor Law Guardians. I would like first, however, to call the Minister's attention to the administration of the Blind Persons Act and to the very special and splendid work that is requisite in this country for the maintenance of blind people, and I would ask him whether he can at some future date receive a deputation of people interested in the State maintenance of the blind, so that we may put before his Department reasons why we feel that the Blind Persons Act is not carrying out the work which Parliament intended. I am not making an attack, but for many years we have worked for the State maintenance of the blind. We believe this country is rich enough, and we think it ought to be generous enough, to remove blind people from the position of beggary, so that they need not be compelled to seek their living by begging either inside or outside public-houses. They should be maintained in decency and, if possible, in comfort. Because Parliament has handed over to what we call the private agencies the attention requisite for the blind people, we, who have fought for State aid for the blind for more than a quarter of a century, feel that that which Parliament desired has not really been done. Therefore, I suggest that if in the future the Ministry would give attention to that point of view, they would be conferring a lasting blessing upon the blind people of this country.
I would like further to criticise the Ministry, and to move a further reduction of the Vote because of its attitude towards vaccination. That is not under discussion to-night, but we shall perhaps find an opportunity on Wednesday of calling attention to the very flagrant misuse by the Ministry of its powers. I am afraid my
hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) will not agree with me there.

Dr. SALTER: Quite right.

Mr. GROVES: I now come to the part of my story which is most serious. My modesty in suggesting that the Minister should only forgo £100 is overbearing. I would have liked, if it were possible, to move that the same proportionate reduction should be applicable to the Minister's salary as is applied to the relief of the poor in West Ham. If my hon. Friend would feel a personal shaft, I would like also to apply it to the Under-Secretary. This discussion arises from the fact that about a year ago, after protracted discusssions, the Government were responsible for placing upon the Statute Book the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act. As a result of that Act, the West Ham Board of Guardians as such died. We have had appointed in their place three presumably important, intelligent, well-to-do and otherwise well-paid people. Although these persons were already in receipt of a sufficient sum of money to keep them, not in decency but in luxury, the West Ham ratepayers were compelled to pay the chairman, Sir Alfred Wood-gate, a sum of £1,500 a year out of the local rates. As to his two assistants, I regret to say that one of them has died in the execution of his duties, or died in harness as we say in the Labour party, but the other, Mr. Beale, is in receipt of £764 a year. Those salaries are in addition to the incomes of which these men were previously in receipt and which were sufficient, as I have said, to keep them, not in decency but in luxury. I want to call the Minister's attention to the fact that his administration has meant that, while certain poor people in West Ham have been compelled by the persons appointed to become poorer, the people of West Ham have been compelled to pay these incomes to these appointed guardians whose incomes were already sufficient to maintain them.
It is a commonplace that the law of the land in this country is that destitute people should and must be relieved. When I spoke here a fortnight ago, the only criticism of my speech made by the Minister of Health was that my premises were false. I agree that when premises are false, the roof falls in, but no one will object to my opening statement, that
it is part of the law of this country that destitute persons should be relieved. We must now analyse why we stand here indicting the Minister for his conduct in West Ham. The Minister, of course, takes the position that these guardians are not his guardians, that he as Minister of Health has no more power and no more interest with regard to them than with regard to any other boards of guardians. He takes the position that once these gentry were appointed to carry on the work of the Poor Law guardians of the West Ham Union, the relation between them and the Ministry of Health is no different from that existing between any other boards of guardians and the Ministry. Last week we had a visit in West Ham from the Minister himself, and I want to prove from his own speech that his personal interest in the West Ham Boards of Guardians, as at present constituted, is such that he does take a very special interest in their work to-day, just as he used to take a very special interest in the work of the old guardians.
He took so much interest in the work of the old guardians that he accepted, holus bolus, the report of his auditor. I have a copy of it here, the same copy from which I quoted during the Committee stage of the Default Bill last year. The Minister himself then said, speaking of West Ham, that the reason he was bringing in his Bill was that
There reigns in some parts open and unabashed corruption."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1926; col. 1642, Vol. 197.]
I then asked him for proof. The proof was based mainly upon this report, as any Member will see who cares to glance at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussion a year ago. You will there find that this auditor's report is repeated almost word for word from beginning to end, and that the general charge laid down by the Minister was one of "open and unabashed corruption." It was stated perfectly openly that there were many cases of actual fraud. Their names, addresses, and all particulars are set out, and when one totals up the cases, one finds that there are exactly 41. That great union had to deal with thousands of cases, thousands, of families, amounting, in all, to 139,000 human beings. It is only reasonable to assume that wherever you go and whatever you do, you will get
some degree of wrong committed. I suggest that the 41 cases submitted to the Minister of Health by his own official auditor—paint them as black as you like—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. GROVES: I was saying, when I was interrupted, that the proportion of cases proved to the Minister of Health was, in all the human circumstances of the case, a very low proportion of wrong doing. I think it is generally understood that West Ham is a very poor place, and I think it is generally understood why that is so. We are talking to-night direct to the Ministry of Health, and we are going to say some very unpleasant things before we have finished. I have some documents here which I hope to read, and I shall try to prove to the Ministry itself that it has transferred the work of the guardians in West Ham from a board that administered relief to the poor under almost overwhelming odds and under circumstances of supreme difficulty—workmen and women who gave readily and voluntarily of their time to serve the common people. When the Minister of Health comes in later in the evening, he will probably get up and disown knowledge of some of these circumstances, but he has appointed these new people with a full knowledge of who they were and what they had to do, and he has maintained his association with them, and I say that lie definitely takes sides with them. When I have read a few of these documents, I will ask him, if he returns, or will ask his hon. Friend on his behalf, some questions about the public speech which he delivered at Whipps Cross Hospital last Wednesday.
I think it is the greatest piece of effrontery for the Minister of Health to go to Whipps Cross Hospital to present medals to nurses. after the newly appointed guardians, who are his own nominees, have deliberately increased the working hours of those nurses. I visit these institutions, and shall do so until I am refused admission. In the sick ward of the central home—years ago we used to call it the workhouse—about three months ago they had so changed the working hours and duties of the women medical attendants that one of
these women dropped at the feet of a doctor with fatigue. In the "H" ward there are 48 sick persons sometimes, some of them chronic invalids with diseases such as cancer, and there are only four women attendants, one of whom was the woman who fell exhausted at the feet of the doctor the day I was present. I do not come here and say things that I read in the newspapers; I retail experiences of my own. The Minister of Health went down to Whipps Cross Hospital to present some medals, and this is what he said:
This particular union"—
the West Ham Union—
was said in some quarters to belong to the Ministry of Health. It did not. He assured them it was not correct that Sir Alfred Woodgate or Mr. Beal were in his pocket. It was true that he was responsible for persuading them to undertake their present duties, and, therefore, it was natural that he should watch with special interest the work which they were doing with so much credit to themselves and so much benefit to the community.
I only want to emphasise that the Minister himself has gone out of his way to take sides with the West Ham Board of Guardians as at present constituted. He would not go down to an ordinary board of guardians and say that he was taking special interest in the work that they were doing with so much credit to themselves and so much benefit to the community. There is a special reason why that happens in West Ham. The reason is that, previously, they had a board of guardians composed of ordinary working men and women, who approached an almost overwhelming problem with just the qualifications of working-class representatives, with honesty and voluntarily. They have been supplanted, and now we are confronted with a board of guardians whose apparently definite and deliberate intention is to impose upon the very poorest people in the West Ham Poor Law Union a standard of life that is nothing short of starvation.
Now let us have some proofs, because for anyone to stand in the British House of Commons and indict any person with continuing a policy of deliberate starvation of Britain's manhood and womanhood is a serious charge, which ought to be proved up to the hilt. These people started with an immediate reduction of the scales of relief, openly, but it is the
insidious manner of their working that is important, like that for which we have indicted the Minister of Labour, for cutting off the registration people on the live register. It is not the open rules and regulations proclaimed to the community that these people have used in order to beat down and oppress the poor people; it is the insidious way in which they have dealt with circumstances. Let me give one or two examples. The new guardians have reduced the rates and the amount of expenditure, and I say that they have done it as the result of starving the poorest of the poor in the West Ham Poor Law Union.
The Minister of Health has stated in this House that he is prepared to deal with cases of individual hardship. The present chairman of the board of guardians has said the same, and I have a bagful of letters here dealing with cases which I have sent to the board and in which I have got the usual kind and courteous reply—so courteous, but so sinister. The reply has always been that the board regrets that it can see no reason to change its original decision. Therefore, this courtesy of " Will you walk into my parlour?' said the spider to the fly," of always being willing to receive Members of Parliament, of being willing to receive the overtures of the elected representatives of the people, is nothing, if we cannot get anything by applying to the Minister. The Minister says: "Let us have cases of individual hardship, and they shall have my attention," but let us see what happens.
One of my constituents, Mr. J. R. Mason, of 50, Geese Road, is suffering from debility very badly—so much so, that he is compelled to attend as an outpatient at the London Hospital, and Dr. D. Hunter, of the London Hospital, recommends that he should have three pints of milk a day. The relieving officer under the new West Ham Board of Guardians refuses any help except the workhouse. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) say that he knows that figures cannot lie, but that liars can figure, but here are actual documents that neither we nor the Ministry can have had any part in producing. Here is a letter from Guy's Hospital in reference to a man named Frederick Clawson, and the way in which I got it was very dramatic. In marching yesterday from Stratford to Hyde Park, I saw
a man exhibiting this, and I said, "What have you got there?" He replied, "I am exhibiting to the people the treatment I have received from the West Ham Guardians." I said to him, "Please show me. I am sure the Minister of Health would like it."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Do I understand the hon. Member has produced it to-night without any further investigation at all?

Mr. GROVES: You will see. It is corroborated. The man's name and address are quite all right. His name is Frederick C. Clawson, and he lives at, 55, Vincent Street, and he has already been in communication with your Department. It is since we have had the guidance of these beneficent people appointed under your Act. Your Department wrote to him immediately after the appointment of our friends, stating:
Subject to the regulations in force, it rests with the guardians to decide whether relief is needed in any case.
This is printed. This is not a personal letter to this man, but the usual routine letter of the Ministry of Health. It says:
The Minister cannot interfere with the discretion of the guardians in these matters.
This man attends Guy's Hospital, and if you had seen him as I saw him, you would most certainly say he was fit only for a convalescent home, but in West Ham he gets 2s. in money and 5s. in groceries for a week—7s. per week to live on. I shall be very pleased to hand this over to the Minister, but it is not the worst that I have to read to him. Here is one which I have had in my possession for months. I did not get this at the demonstration yesterday.

Sir K. WOOD: I am quite unaware of any of these eases. Has the hon. Member made any inquiry as to the facts in the case he has just quoted—as to whether the man has any family?

Mr. GROVES: Yes. He has got a father, who is out of work.

Sir K. WOOD: Is that, all?

Mr. GROVES: He is living with his parents, but his father is out of work, and he has other relatives, but if a man
is ill, so ill that he has to go to a hospital, are we, in this Christian country, in this position, that because this boy has got brothers in local works getting £2 5s. a week, he has to look to that financial source for his support? Yet, as I have shown, some of these people need three pints of milk a day.

Major PRICE: Do we understand that the gentleman you saw yesterday marched in procession front West Ham?

Mr. GROVES: No, I did the marching. If there be any credit in it, I walked from Stratford Grove to Hyde Park to demonstrate my hostility to the Government. I have in my hand a card with particulars of a case of which, I am sure, the Ministry have had notice. It is the case of Charles Gillham, a young man in my area, who attended the local hospital because he felt queer. This is a Christian country. Listen to this. On the back of this card there is this statement in the handwriting of a doctor at Queen Mary's Hospital, which is in the West Ham Poor Law Union area, "Fainting, due to hunger." Anyone can examine this. The Guardians of West Ham refused any relief whatever. They refused help on the ground that the boy was living with his parents. We believe that the ease we are putting to the Minister of Health is justified and that the conditions which have been imposed upon us are unjustified. We believe the cases we are bringing forward can be multiplied by hundreds or by thousands. If the Ministry want us to collect them in bulk, we will. I have plenty in my case, and I have raised three which, in my opinion, are the worst from the point of view of brutality. I trust the Minister will see that the saving in pounds, shillings and pence in West Ham has been at the expense of men and women and, worst of all, at the expense of children.
This is the acid test. When the Ministry of Health issue their annual report for this year I hope they will give a special page to the question of infant mortality in West Ham. Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, states that high infantile mortality implies not only the loss of many infants but the maiming of many surviving children, for the conditions which kill some injure others, and there is a high death rate in the next
four years amongst infants who have survived. He quotes this wonderful passage:
The large infant mortality rate predisposes, as would be expected to a large death-rate among children.
I want the Committee to consider what has happened in West Ham in this respect since the arrival of the people appointed by the Ministry of Health. Here is the report of the medical officer of health. The figures can be verified; I know that it will not take the Minister many seconds to do it. In 1924 West Ham's infant mortality rate was 78.30 per 1,000, against 80 per 1,000 in the 105 great towns of Great Britain. In 1925 it was 65.98 per 1,000, and in the other 105 towns 79. Under the old regime in West Ham we gave the best possible treatment to the aged, the unemployed, prospective mothers and children. I would not come to this House and be so hypocritical as to say that we in West Ham ever put the saving of the local rates before the saving of death rates. What we tried to do was to save human lives; that is greater than saving pounds, shillings and pence to the nation. John Ruskin says: "There is no wealth but life." You will never get life developed under conditions as laid down in the Poor Law Union of West Ham to-day.
In West Ham under the old regime we reduced the infant mortality in contrast with that in the 105 great towns of this country: I want the Committee to listen to what has happened; I will not say it is a result, but the Government will have to explain these circumstances. In October, 1926, the first month in which these new guardians had been operating, the infant mortality rate in West Ham was 82.4 per 1,000 and in the 105 great towns 100. In November it was 64.5, and in the other great towns 75. What were the figures in the third month? I would not accuse the new guardians of anything as the result of one month's work, but I think three months is a fair period for drawing deductions from an analysis of their work. Whereas in December the infant mortality of the 105 towns was only 84 per 1,000, in West Ham it had gone up to 90.7. In January this year the rate in the 105 great towns was 98.2 and in West Ham 100.4. In February in the 105 towns it was 100 and in WePf Ham 101. In March in the 105
towns it was 90 and in West Ham 104. April exactly repeats those figures. Those are figures issued by our medical officer of health. He has no axe to grind. As my hon. Friends behind me know, he has no party bias, he takes only a doctor's view. He presents to us the medical statistics. He never coloured them in favour of the old guardians, and I am sure he would not colour them against the present guardians. He merely deals with his job as a medical man. Those figures stand as a lasting indietment of the policy of the present guardians.
It is not a question merely of rules and regulations. It is the insidious manner in which these guardians have quietly worked to reduce here and there, even by 1s., the money that went into the homes of the people in the common form of parish relief, the money that enabled these people to keep body and soul together. The Minister, as the head of a great Department, ought to realise that his Department and his honour are greater than any mere attack upon a publicly-elected body of guardians, even if they are Labour members. The honour and the prestige of the Ministry of Health is too great for him to risk it in defending people responsible for these barbarous practices. In my opinion, if the Minister did his duty he would clear out these people lock, stock and barrel. I hope he will clear them out within a short time, because the crucial moment is coming when he has either got to get rid of them or give them a new lease of life. Take the question of coal. The old popularly-elected guardians did realise that poor people need coal in the winter. It seems a fairly reasonable thing to give people a half-cwt. of coal. Bless my heart and soul alive, that would not fill the grates of some hon. Members. But the few cwts. of coal which the people used to get were regarded as part of the extravagance of the old guardians. You have to produce a doctor's certificate to prove that you are ill before you can get coal from the new guardians.
I have been here for five years and have never been accused of coming here and making extravagant statements or unfair statements. Here is a peculiar situation. There are able-bodied men in
thousands out of work. When first I came to Parliament I heard a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown explaining, in simple language but true, why West Ham is poor. West Ham grew up with the docks. We cannot help trade breaking down. We cannot help the cessation of imports and exports. It is an awful thing when these men have exhausted their claim to unemployment benefit and arrive at the moment—one of the saddest moments in the life of any British workman—when they have to choose between having nothing in the cupboard and going to the door of the relieving officer. That saps the pride of a British working man. I have seen men with whom I have worked go steadily down the slope. They were men who used to have a clean collar and an upright and a cleanly appearance. They leave off that collar; they come to shabbiness. The first time a, man goes to the door of the R.O., as we say, he goes with bowed head. He has not been there a month before he goes with head erect. Society has taught him that that is where he can find his bread. Then you have beat him. How do you beat him I Your new guardians now say to all these unemployed men, "If you are single and under 40, clear out." There is no relief for a single able-bodied man under 40 years of age. If the Government cannot find a man work, then the parish must find him bread. Under the new reégime these able-bodied men must go and get a doctor's certificate proving they are fit for light work only. If they cannot produce that medical certificate, it is assumed that they are fit for ordinary work, and there is no parish relief for them. I say, in perfect friendship, that is a diabolical system to introduce into this country, and it will take more than kind words on the part of the man who is accustomed to use them to explain that away. What I have stated is based on my personal experience. I walk the relief stations—well, I do not walk through them, but I get in touch with them in order that I can get hold of the facts, and facts are very inconvenient things.
Take the next question. Some people have been taken to Court to make them pay back the money which, to use the vernacular, they had on loan. Half-a-dozen
men were taken co the County Court. I suppose hon. Members are aware that during the general strike some men went to the parish. They had money during the strike, and after it was all over the Minister of Health declared that all those persons had had that money on loan. As I understand it, if a man applies for relief, by he law of the land the guardians have power to grant that money on loan. During the general strike people in my district applied to the relieving officer, and he replied, "You are on strike, but I will let you have this £2, but, understand, it is on loan and has to be repaid." What I want the Minister to understand is the harshness, the callousness and the hypocrisy which has been assumed in deciding that all the men who applied for relief during the strike knew that they were having relief on loan. Many of these men have had sent to them a note saying that the money they have had on loan must be repaid, and the officiating guardians have stooped so low as to say they are prepared to accept repayment at 6d. per week.
I say that the bulk of the people who got relief during the strike at West Ham did not have it on loan and the guardians knew all about this The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was very surprised when during the Debate some time ago I told him that his advance troops were at Union Road. Up to two weeks ago a staff was engaged at West Ham marking in the books "On loan." I wish to repeat that statement in case I am required to prove it. The West Ham Guardians have a cabinet which is indexed and contains the record cards. Legally those records are part of the official routine office work. Legally the only thing that can be accepted is what is called the application and record book, which is larger in length than an ordinary dispatch box. The guardians sit with the relieving officers and the facts are written in the book and when something is granted, if it is granted on loan that fact must be specifically written by the side of the name of the person it is granted to, and it is initialled in the book at the time of granting by the guardians who are present. Up to two weeks ago I know that a staff was engaged by the new purists to fill in the books in that way.

Dr. SALTER: That is forgery.

Mr. J. JONES: It is a forgers' Government.

HON. MEMBERS: "Red Letter!"

Mr. GROVES: If the Minister of Health will give me a reasonable assurance that the person engaged to fill up the books in the way I have described will not suffer loss of employment I will produce him at the Bar of the House. I ask hon. Members opposite who have been so loyal in supporting the Government in their attempt to repress what they call corruption to take that fact into consideration, because in my view it is something which no decent-minded man can defend. I will conclude by asking the Minister of Health to reconsider the kindly interest he is taking in the West Ham Board of Guardians in dealing with old age pensions. When we were discussing in July, 1925, the Pensions Bill, somebody moved an Amendment providing that the pension paid to widows should be 20s. instead of 10s., and on that occasion the Minister of Health said:
As I have said, in the first place, these pensions are not sufficient in themselves to enable a woman to keep up a home for herself.
I think when men or women have spent the best years of their lives in the interests of their country in industry, and have grown old and grey working and toiling, arrive at this age, it is reasonable for them to expect that although the country imperially is not sufficiently generous although it is sufficiently wealthy, it should see that these men or women can live their remaining years comfortably outside the walls of the workhouse. It is reasonable to assume that if a man or woman lives 40 or 50 years in a parish the 10s. a week pension might be supplemented by 5s. from the parish. What is happening in West Ham is that within the next week or two they are going to clear off all the old age pensions. In my area if a man signs at the Employment Exchange that he has got his sons at work, then his sons must keep him. The Minister of Health has admitted that 10s. paid as a pension is not sufficient to keep a woman, but if she has a son or a daughter at work then she cannot receive assistance from the parish. Therefore the new guardians are punishing the children in this way. I do not ask hon. Members on this question to
violate their loyalty to the Government. but if the Government will not find work for these people and they are beaten to the wall, surely that is not the moment for the guardians to do such things as I have mentioned.
In the case of these poor people, friends are very hard to find under such circumstances. It is bad enough when a man or a woman is compelled to apply to a relieving officer, but when they are driven to apply for Poor Law relief in this way I do feel that this country should be big enough to see that the Poor Law administration will be such as to see that their manhood and womanhood is respected and not degraded. The new guardians in West Ham have proclaimed a policy of suppression and oppression against the flower of Britain's womanhood and manhood. A few years ago the men I am pleading for were fighting for the freedom of this country. In the area I represent we have thousands of men who wore medals on their breasts for their services during the War, and yet to-day they are living in poverty. In moving this reduction of £100 I would like to say that I should much prefer moving that the Minister's salary be reduced by the same amount as the relief of the poor people of West Ham has been reduced. That would be in the first place 25 per cent. and then 10 per cent.
8.0. p.m.
I hope I have made out my case without undue bitterness. At any rate my case is based upon facts and personal experience. I have seen the men and women in my own neighbourhood decaying and becoming debilitated and they are men whom I used to work with. You expect these men to live straight and upright lives and you are only allowing them 7s. a week in food tickets, and not one penny in money. How do you expect those men to live under such circumstances as that? These questions must be answered. Whatever the consequences we must impress upon the Minister this question and we must insist upon knowing why the right hon. Gentleman does not take action against the West Ham guardians who are now granting only 7s. per week for a man to live upon. How can such men be expected to keep themselves clean? We ought to approach this question and adopt a decent standard of living. Cut out all this passion and this hatred of West Ham which arises simply
because we have a Labour and Socialist majority, and approach these problems with a realisation that you have no right to punish a man because he is poor. A man has no right to be degraded because he is out of work, and we look to the Ministry of Health to be truly a Ministry of Health, to rise above party passions, to face the circumstances, and to help us to impress upon the West Ham Board of Guardians that this work must stop, and that they must treat the people of the West Ham Union according to the laws of decency, propriety and comfort.

Miss LAWRENCE: I know a little better now than to appeal to the Minister of Health on grounds of pity and humanity; but I feel that we have a right to get from the Minister the strict observance of the law. The Minister is very fond of appealing to the law when boards of guardians step a little beyond the law, moved by motives of philanthropy and charity. That is right and as it should be; but what I have to complain about is that the Minister encourages the West Ham Board of Guardians habitually to break the law of England with regard to outdoor relief. The law is clear and plain. Fathers and mothers must maintain their children; children must maintain their parents, but there is no obligation of any kind upon brothers to maintain brothers or upon sisters to maintain sisters; but the whole policy of this board of guardians is to attach the earnings of brothers and sisters to keep other members of the family who are not legally dependent upon them. If these people knew their job, they could get out of it, but they trade upon the benevolent feelings of brothers and sisters and cast the whole care of maintaining the younger members of the family upon the sisters and brothers. There are the children of soldiers who have been killed in the War, to whom the Government have given pensions, and this board of guardians have thrown upon them the maintenance of their step-brothers, stepsisters and step-fathers. When the Government were deciding what we ought to give to the children of men who died in the service of the country, they considered very carefully what was the proper sum to give, so that these children could get a proper up-bringing.
I will give two cases. Those cases I brought to the notice of the Minister, and he knows they are perfectly genuine. There were four children of a soldier who was killed, and the Government gave the children pensions. One of them died, and there are three of them left. They have, in the form of pensions, 23s. 6d. a week, while one of them is earning 12s. a week. Later, the mother married, and there are two children of the later marriage. To the father, the mother and the two younger children the guardians give 8s. in kind and 5s. in money, I3s. altogether. The orphans of the soldier have to maintain their mother, their step-father and the two stepchildren. One of the bedrooms they have sub-let for 4s. 6d. a week, because they have so little money for food, and there money fare the soldier's children have nothing like the bedroom space which would make children happy and healthy. The bedrooms of the soldier's orphans have been taken away from them in order that the other members of the family many have enough to eat. There is another case, of a similar kind, where the three orphans of a soldier have 17s. 6d. a week as pensions, and earn 10s. a week. The mother married, and there is another child of the second marriage. They get 4s. a week in kind from the guardians, and 4s. a week in cash, and the rent is 4s. 2d. a week. They let one of the rooms and, again, the sleeping accommodation of a soldier's orphans has been filched from them because there is no money to feed the rest of the family. When the country voted all that amount of taxation in order that soldiers' orphans should be properly treated, it did not mean that they should be all herded into one room. This is the more wicked on the part of the Minister. because the members of the former board of guardians faced up to cases of this kind. In 1922, they communicated with the Ministry of Pensions, and the Minister of Pensions wrote a letter to them which determined their policy. He said:
The pensions for the children of the soldier should be expended for their sole benefit.
That was not what the Labour Minister said, but what the Conservative Minister said in 1922, and that is the common sense of the matter. This money was never
voted to go in indiscriminate relief to the relations of soldiers' orphans. We voted this money in order that the children of men who died in the War might be decently and healthily brought up. Here, in those two cases, the money is being filched from them, and they are being housed in a way which is not wholesome and decent. That is what the Minister is doing.
I now come to more general matters. The Minister is very fond of saying, when certain cases are brought before him, that he cannot interfere with the discretion of the boards of guardians. But we know that the Minister has power to issue general Regulations. The old West Ham Board of Guardians, when they had to deal with an old person, gave 15s. a week. You cannot get a room in West Ham for less than 5s. or 4s. 6d. a week. The new board of guardians have cut down the maximum scale for single persons to 11s. a week. If you have to pay 5s. or 45. 6d. a week for a room, how can you live and obtain food, firing and clothing and everything else on the balance of 11s.? It is not possible to do it. I knew some of these cases, and I know that people are suffering from hunger, and that in the winter they were suffering from cold, as a direct result of the Regulations laid down by the present board of guardians. Some time or other these people will take a chill, they will not have the strength to throw it off, and, though the medical certificate will be that death was caused by pneumonia or bronchitis, the real cause will be starvation because of Regulations carried out under the auspices of the Minister of Health. I have got here in my hand the Report of the West Ham Union, which has been printed in His Majesty's Stationery Office. I do not know what authority Parliament gives to the Minister of Health to print the reports of local government authorities. It is certainly a nice way for the local authorities to save money. If he would consider extending that to the Poplar Borough Council, it would take a bit off the Poplar rates, and we would feel greatly obliged to him. They draw the attention of the world in general to the amount which they have saved in salaries and wages. They have saved something like £15,000 in salaries, and they have done it, partly, by making the
nurses work longer hours than any women engaged in nursing ought to do. When I challenged the Minister about this, the Minister denied it, and then I put a question to him, and he had to admit that what I said was true. It is put down also in the report of the West Ham Board of Guardians.
The nurses used to have at the Central Infirmary—not everywhere, but at the Central Infirmary, where the work is very heavy, they used to have a 48-hour week, which meant that they had a day off to recuperate. The new board of guardians have given the nurses a 56-hour week, which means that they do not get a clear day. The West Ham Board of Guardians did not, as they ought to have done, give all the nurses in all their institutions a 48 hours week. At Whipps Cross, the nurses have worked more than 48 hours a week, but in the Central Infirmary, where the heavy cases are nursed, they had only a 48-hour week. I want the Committee to remember that there is no such heavy nursing as the nursing in a workhouse infirmary. At West Ham, the nursing is very much heavier than in London, because in London the Poor Law guardians send the very distressful cases to the sick asylums of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. They do not keep in the workhouses in London the cancer cases and the cases of venereal disease. West Ham does, and, in these extreme cancer cases, it is not merely that the patient is dying from cancer, but very heavy work is demanded of the nurses.
If a person dying from cancer is of any weight, the nurses have to shift the patient continually, or the poor wretch is tormented with bed sores as well as with cancer, so that a nurse who is nursing a dying cancer case has not merely the ordinary work of nursing, but a great deal of heavy lifting and moving, and, if that work is not done, the patient suffers very acutely and painfully. Nurses and sick attendants are only human beings, and, in that atmosphere of death—because there is nothing so depressing to the mind of a woman or a man as to be dealing with chronic cases that cannot recover, that only leave the institution by death, to be replaced by fresh chronic cases, who in three or four months will die, too—there is no work so dispiriting, and, if the nurses do not have a short working
week, they cannot give the care and attention that they should; they cannot give the patients those little attentions that are so necessary, they cannot keep up the sort of atmosphere of hopefulness which it is their duty to keep up.
Of all the things that the Minister has done, I think one of the most petty, one of the economies which is most bitter to-day, is the lengthening of the working week of the nurses at the Central Institution from 48 to 56 hours. This is not the first time that the Minister has heard about it. It is in the Report here; it was put to him in this House; it was put to him by question and answer. He knows all about it, and he knows that the unions representing these nurses and sick attendants came to him and argued the case. They pointed out that in other boards of guardians where the work was not so heavy, in London boards of guardians—in Hackney, I think, and some others—because the nursing work is by its nature dispiriting, and because women cannot keep up a proper attitude of mind and a proper condition of body, in other workhouse infirmaries in London, they have a 48-hour week, although they do not have this number of patients. It is getting very common. The London County Council nurses have a 48-hour week. All good institutions where the work is heavy have a 48-hour week, and to re-impose a 56-hour week does mean a callousness on the part of the Minister that I, for one, cannot understand.
The ingenious cruelty of this board of guardians is terrible. Let me take the case of what is done with regard to dock labourers. A dock labourer, if he is a superior sort of man, has a tally, and the tally means that he gets work when work is going. He has to go to the Employment Exchange twice a day to sign on if he does not get work, and he has to go twice a day to the docks, which are at the other end of the district, to look for a job. This present board of guardians have passed a rule that, if a man has a brass tally, he is only to be relieved as and when relief is applied for, because they say that, if they give him anything like a regular wage, if they make an order, some day or other he may slip down to the docks and get half a day's work, and they will not know
about it. I will give particulars of a case which I investigated, and which I think has been to the Minister. During six weeks the man in question, who was getting unemployment benefit, had the following out-relief: One week he had 14s. in kind; the next week he had 29s. in kind; then there was a gap, and then he had 22s. regularly for three weeks. Then, on the 13th December, he got a day's work, and earned 19s. He got 7s. in relief, and, of course, lost his unemployment benefit. Then people say that the poor do not want to work. This man, by going to the docks, got a day's work and earned 19s. His relief was cut down to 7s., and he lost his unemployment benefit. These are the inducements that we have to give to the poor.
This man is lame. He spends the whole of his time going backwards and forwards twice a day to she docks, twice a day to the Employment Exchange, and round again to the relieving officer. He is a good attender at the docks, and once in about six weeks, with the depression at the docks and because he is lame, he gets a job; and he has to pay fares. He spends the whole of his life crawling around on that unceasing journey up to the Employment Exchange, because the Minister will not have an Employment Exchange at the docks, though we have asked him often enough. This man goes up to the Employment Exchange at one end of East Ham, down to the docks to look for work, back to the Employment Exchange to sign on, again down to the docks, and now, without a penny in the cupboard, round to the relieving officer. What makes me more angry, even than the suffering of this family, is the contempt with which the poor are treated. The Minister of Labour will not have a room at the docks in order to spare this double daily trudge up to the other end of the borough. A man may be a dock labourer, and lame at that: what is the good of considering him? Let him walk; let him spend the whole of his life in that unceasing trudge. That is the sort of life you give the people, and people do not understand the depression, the misery, the unhappiness which settles down upon a family when they have to live in that sort of way. The wife said to me that they cannot bear it. This perpetual walking and no job, with a little crumb thrown by the relieving
officer, is breaking the men's hearts, and is breaking the women's hearts too. I say we ought not to treat the poor so despitefully. I cannot help what the West Ham Board of Guardians do, but to make some decent arrangement whereby this man is not kept walking round and round with his lame leg, in bad weather, is, I think, the very least thing the guardians ought to do.
I want now to ask the Minister a few questions. The last Report of the West Ham Guardians spoke about the wonderful economies they made; and one of the wonderful economies they made was to cut down the loan repayments for the half year from £127,000 to £58,000. The old board, which was so hardly spoken of, did at any rate pay back its interest and part of the principal, which the Minister quite properly accepted. In the last recorded half year, they paid £127,000 for interest and part of the principal. The Minister is uncommonly kind to the new board in the first half year and has let them off the repayment of part of the principal, so that the saving they have made is merely that they are keeping back money that the Exchequer ought to have. We should all like to make savings of that sort. We could all make very large private savings at the expense of the amount the Exchequer is entitled to demand from us. I should like to ask what arrangement Is entered into with this board of guardians with regard to the repayment of the debt they owe and the amount they are to repay in future, and whether the arrangements the Minister will no doubt outline are peculiar to this board of guardians, or whether he proposes to extend the same kind, liberal and generous treatment to the destitute boards of guardians in the mining and industrial areas, and, if not, what justification has he for treating his own children so very much better than his step-children, the other boards of guardians. It is a lamentable thing that in West Ham alone the infantile mortality figures for this year are so much worse than last. A good many things have been said about Poplar, but Poplar's vital statistics compare extraordinarily favourably with those of West Ham, and it seems to be forgotten that the object for which guardians were instituted was that people who were hungry and unemployed
should have some definite standard of living. Judged by any of these humane standards, the West Ham Board of Guardians are in a very inferior position.
I should like to make one more general reflection, which ought to come home to the Minister of Health, and that is the extraordinary amount of sub-letting. East Ham is a horribly crowded place. I have known families of six,. seven and eight in a room. The place is crowded so that any room can be let almost at once and, where relief has been cut down, the people have very commonly adopted the plan of all huddling together into one room and letting the second bedroom to some lodger in order to bring in a few shillings a week. The Minister and the West Ham Guardians have, to my knowledge, increased the unbearable and indecent crowding in the borough I represent. I have been to the board of guardians about a family where the father has consumption. Two children have caught it and the rest are in great danger. They are living in one room, and if a decent amount of out-relief were given they could get another room. There is not enough money to pay for the rent, even in tuberculous cases, to separate the people who are healthy from those who are diseased. If you could have the loss of life due to overcrowding, the crowding together in some cases of tubercular and healthy people, the loss of life doe to debility caused by underfeeding and the general human misery caused by the operations of the West Ham Board of Guardians—if I had eloquence I could move the House, but we are not all eloquent and we can only put the plain story before the Minister. I am not putting it before him really. I do not think it is much use. I am putting it before the House, so that what we have to say may be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT and compassionate people up and down the country may speak, not to the Minister but to their Members of Parliament, and ask them to put some form of pressure upon the Minister.

Mr. J. JONES: I might say, along with some of my colleagues, "Blessed are they who expect little. They shall not be disappointed." The state of the Committee demonstrates the enormous amount of interest our friends in the Government
take in matters affecting the life and well-being of the people. West Ham was singled out for a special reason. I can remember when the Bill was introduced dealing with the West Ham Guardians. At that time wholesale charges of corruption were levelled against the board, and, as I listened to the speech, I waited for the facts, but they were not forthcoming. All we got was a recitation of prejudices, but no statement of fact bearing out the charges made against the guardians. The new guardians have had nearly 12 months of experience of administration of the Poor Law in the largest Poor Law area in the country. We find that out of hundreds of thousands of cases dealt with in the course of the year they have only discovered 41 cases, out of a population of over 1,000,000, where fraud could have been proved against the individuals concerned—not corruption against the guardians, but misrepresentation on the part of the people who applied for relief. That is the sum total of the so-called corruption in the largest area of Poor Law administration in the country, and probably the most difficult area. We are cursed with more than our fair amount of casual labour. We are the victims of industrial circumstances over which we have no control. In spite of all these difficulties, with all the administrative ability and power of these ex-civil servants, on pension, and now also on salary, they can only discover 41 cases.
One of the boasts made on their behalf is very peculiar. I was a member of the board for five years, and, whenever the Minister honoured us with a visit to give us the benefit of his wisdom and counsel, we made a bit of a fuss about it. It was advertised in the local Press, and we all went to hear the wisdom that would come from the high orators who came from Whitehall to tell us all about it. On this occasion the Minister of Health came to West Ham unannounced. There was no decoration outside the building, whatever there may have been inside. He complimented the board of guardians on their administration. What is their administration. Some of our men and women have had to walk to Union Road from Silvertown because they could not afford even to pay their tram fare before they got free tickets. They went there day after day, very often from ten in the
morning to five in the afternoon, and could not have a cup of tea unless they paid for it out of their own pockets. These people can come along with a pension of £800 and salaries of £1,500 to administer the affairs of West Ham, and at the end of their first 12 months they have saved 4d. in the £ on the rates.
A 4d. rate in West Ham represents in the aggregate £60,000, but they owe the Government £800,000, because, after all, if they have taken the place of the old guardians, they have also taken their responsibilities. What have they paid back? I ask the few gentlemen who are now sitting on the benches opposite, what the appointed and paid board of guardians have done to find the money the board owe to the Government? Our men and women had a little more judgment and foresight, and they met their responsibilities. They paid all the time by levying a rate on the people in respect of the money that had been borrowed for the administration of Poor Law affairs, We in West Ham have taken up this attitude, and will continue to take it up, namely, that the relief of unemployment ought not to be a local charge, and that tee maintenance of the old and infirm should not altogether be a local charge. Because we could not get other people to agree with us we have been compelled to shoulder the burden, and our rates have had to go up enormously in order to meet those responsibilities.
What have they done? They say they have borrowed no money. They have lived upon the rate that has been levied. They have not done anything of the kind. The old board of guardians applied for a loan of £300,000 shortly before the new board were appointed. We could not get the money, because, evidently, the Government had something up their sleeve, and probably the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act was part and parcel of it. What is the consequence? This new board started with a loan of £300,000. I will ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, if he can tell us how much of that £300,000 they have paid back. It is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the people to say that they are administering the affairs of West Ham more economically than was formerly the case. As a matter of fact, if they had
paid off the requisite proportion of debt, they would have had to levy an additional 6d. rate for Poor Law purposes.
I am not going to weary the Committee with cases of hardship. The whole thing is hardship. Those of us who have been through it know that even with the most generous scale of relief it is a case of hardship for any man or woman who has to come before the Board of Guardians. Our crime is not that we have not administered the law. Our crime is that we have taken a more humane view of things than those who have been opposed to us. They think that 21s. a week is sufficient for a man wife and three children. They think that 37s. 6d. a week is sufficient for a man, wife and eight children, for that is the highest scale of relief. They have cut down wherever they can. When we were in office we used to take cases of special hardship into consideration. If parents had to keep children at home from school because they were unable to provide them with boots to wear, we used to provide the children with boots. Is that a crime? That has all been cut out now. In order to try and provide boots for these children we have to organise a private fund. I want to say that a man who will rob a child of a boot will take a penny out of a blind man's hand. That is what your so-called expert Poor Law administrators have done in West Ham. Their so-called economy is a figment of the imagination. It is not real relief and does not face the situation. We therefore hope that this Amendment to reduce the Vote will be carried as a protest against the appointment of these people.
The Minister of Health told us that he cannot interfere with the discretion of the gentlemen whom he has appointed. Why did he interfere with our discretion? Simply because we had to ask him for money. They have to do the same. They have to come to the Ministry for money just as we did. He did not merely interfere with us, but he told us we had no right to exist in spite of the fact that we had been elected by the people we represented by an overwhelming majority. When the council elections took place we obtained, in spite of all the so-called extravagances in West Ham, in every part of the Poor Law area, with two exceptions which we never expected to secure, the return of men and women representatives with considerable
majorities. This legislation will come to an end soon, I hope, as well as the Government, who are the authors of it. But what will be the new Poor Law regulation It will be, that the local councils will have the control of Poor Law administration. I believe that that is the intention of the Government in their proposed new scħeme so far as the Poor Law is concerned. The reason that a proper proportion of the borrowed money has not been paid back by the appointed guardians is because they want to hand on the baby to us.
The local councils in the various areas will have to shoulder the burden which these people ought to be meeting as they go along. They would not have been able to come out with their Report and say they had saved the ratepayers 4d. on the rates if they had shouldered their financial responsibilities in the proper way. They may have been able to cut, off people from Poor Law relief, and, here and there, cut down the scale of relief, but the great sum total of poverty in this district—the district that we all know so well, those of us who live in it—remains. All that they have been able to do is simply to try and bale out the Atlantic with a spoon. All their savings really amount to nothing. The only thing they have done is to squeeze a shilling out of those who cannot afford the sacrifice, and they have endeavoured to make the Poor Law stink in the nostrils of the great mass of the people. The people they hit most are the people to whom they pretend to be most sympathetic—the old people. I know, in my own district, of a case of a man who has two sons, who are out of work, living with him. The sons are drawing unemployment benefit and their father's relief is cut down because they are drawing this unemployment benefit. What is the good of humbugging us about or talking about National Insurance Acts when you give a man a few shillings with one hand and devise schemes for taking it away with the other? It is playing ducks and drakes with, what may be called, common or ordinary honesty.
The Minister says he has no control over these appointed guardians. During the five years I have been a member of the board I have always understood, as far as we had the law explained to us by the greatest lawyers on Poor Law matters—and the late Mr. Smith, who was a member
of the last Royal Commission on the Poor Law, so informed us—that no relief could be given or recognised except that it was passed by the properly constituted committee of the board, and finally passed by the board itself. Relief committees used to meet in various parts of the Poor Law area and examine every case, and upon the facts placed before them and the reports of the investigators and relieving officers decided to give what we called relief. The chairman of the relief committee signed these orders, and, if they were on loan, an entry was made in the margin of the book that the relief was granted by loan. What do I find now? This so-called board of guardians do not even meet together.
They do not meet the people who apply for relief; they do not interview the people who are in receipt of Poor Law relief, but they pay 7s. 6d. a day to young clerks to go to the various relief stations and hear the cases put before them and make orders for relief. Is that administering the Poor Law? When the right hon. Gentleman moved the Second Reading of the Board of Guardians (Default) Act he told us that there was no intention to alter the law but only the administration as far as West Ham was concerned. I ask, here and now, is it not the law that the so-called guardians of the poor must themselves be the authority to see that the people who apply for relief should have investigation of their claims, and that the orders should be properly made out? In the old days, we did not send young clerks from the office to do that sort of work; we sent clerks to take records of the work of the committee, but, as far as the actual granting of relief was concerned, it was granted by the guardians themselves.
All that has been reversed. The House Committee meets after the board is supposed to have met, thereby reversing the whole procedure. The Relief Committee formerly reported to the House Committee, and the House Committee reported to the board. A clerk is sent to do the work which the Relief Committee used to do in conjunction with the relieving officer, and the board merely meets to sign the relief. Where is the corruption now. Thousands and thousands of pounds are signed away in relief, and the men who sign it have not seen the
people concerned but have, simply paid junior clerks to do the work for them. These are the men who charge us with corruption. We are babies when it comes to a question of maladministration.
Our opponents in West Ham cannot get in by a free vote of the people. They cannot win a seat in the overwhelming majority of constituencies in the Poor Law area; but by underhand and back-stair influence they got hold of the Minister, and the Minister was a willing tool in their hands. Now, they are finding that the goods have not been delivered. They were to show us up and to demonstrate how corrupt we were. They were going to save an enormous sum of money. They have done nothing of the sort. They have all the problems facing them, and now they have a little bit of sugar for the bird. There is to be a new works started in Silvertown to employ 200 or 300 men for the time being. That is held up as a great record of what these men are doing and of the work they are bringing into the borough. They have had nothing to do with it. They have as much to do with it as I have to do with the flying of the Atlantic by Captain Lindbergh. They are boasting of this sort of thing; but they forget about the 3,000 men who are signing on at the Employment Exchange in the southern part of the borough. They forget about the 15,000 people who are almost on permanent relief. They are not able to cut them down, except by surreptitious methods.
They have not touched the problem of poverty, either from the local or the national point of view. This report which they have issued is an insult to the people of the district. It will take many more men than Sir Alfred Wood-gate and his friends before they are able to tackle the problem of poverty. Instead of appointing these paid gentlemen to come and show as how things can be done, it would have been better had the Government set themselves to the real problem; how to get rid of the problem of casual labour, and try to get rid of the perpetual curse of men having to tramp from factory to factory and workshop to workshop in search of a few days' work. It is a crime that men should have to tramp from Silvertown to Poplar to sign on, for the chance of getting a few paltry shillings of unemployment
pay. These men have paid for this benefit. Why, then, should they be forced to undergo this inconvenience When a man has been paying into an insurance fund he ought to be able to get benefit without being put to so much inconvenience. He has helped to build up the insurance fund and he is entitled to receive the benefit, without obstacles being put in his way. It seems to be the object of the Government to make it as difficult as possible for men to get their unemployment benefit, and to humiliate them and degrade them to every possible degree. It is as difficult for a poor man to get the benefits for which he has been compelled to pay, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. We are told that this is scientific administration. I call it scientific robbery.
We in West Ham are not ashamed. We have no apology to offer. Our men have challenged the Government. The members of the board of guardians are ready to stand in the dock if you will put them there. If you have the courage to put them there and make any charge against them, they are ready to go. Up to now, they have administered things to the best of their ability. They are clean and honest men and women, trying to do their best under difficult circumstances. A few years ago we had a scandal in West Ham and a great fuss was made in the country, but it was soon dropped when it was discovered that seven out of the eight people who had got into trouble were members of the two parties who occupy the other parts of the House, and not these benches. One Labour man was found in the cart, and he went through it. Not merely was he sent to prison, but he was expelled from the Labour party when we found out the game that he had been playing. The others came out of prison and they are very respectable people today, benefiting by the fact that they belong to the respectable parties. Our men and women are willing to go through any kind of investigation. Our record has been clean, as far as it is possible for human beings to be clean in public life.
The appointment by the Government of men to come to West Ham to administer our Poor Law affairs has demonstrated itself to be a failure. If the Government have no other idea of public
administration than the appointment of paid officials of this sort, it is only another proof of their lack of foresight and their extravagance. They opposed us when we asked for one shilling allowance for lunch for men who spent from 10 o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the evening, on three or four days in the week. They would not allow that and the auditor would not allow it as an allowance for food, although some of these men who were doing this public work were only casual labourers. The Government appoint men who have £1,500 a year, in addition to a pension of £800. Of course, they are honest men, while our people are supposed to be corrupt. As far as we are concerned, man for man and woman for woman we are cleaner than the people who have supplanted us.
This Amendment has been put down for the purpose of bringing these matters before the public. We who represent West Ham are willing to face you wherever and whenever you like and to take our stand as far as our administration is concerned. Our only crime has been to do justice to the people, as we know them. We have tried to help them in their adversity and through the valley of the shadow through which they have been passing. The fact that the benches of this House are so empty demonstrates that the Government have no case; but later on their supporters will be here. The men who will spend more on their dinner to-night than they are prepared to give to a man for food for a week, will come here, later on, with the tears glistened down their shirt fronts, and they will show what they think about West Ham and its board of guardians, and what they think of the people we represent. But a day of reckoning is coming, and when the facts are known and the truth is out West Ham will again be rehabilitated.
We have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide. We can face the future with every confidence. We are not in the dock; those who are against us will be in the dock when the real issue is faced. We are anxious that this Government, having had the experience which they have had during the last 12 months of their pets administering public affairs, should go to West Ham and say, "Look what we have done for you! We have saved you a lot of money. We have reduced your rates. We have reduced
your debt responsibilities. Now, having every confidence in the common sense of the people, we will send these three men about their business and allow you to elect your own board of guardians." wish they would do that; but they do not do that. We in West Ham are not afraid; we are ready for any judgment that may be placed upon us, but we want the right hon. Gentleman to give definite answers to definite questions. How can he justify the policy that has been pursued? He cannot do so. Therefore, we want to draw attention to the fact that while the people of West Ham have been called upon to face their responsibilities, the Government instead of facing their responsibilities and tackling the problem, have been playing with public administration.

Mr. W. THORNE: Up to the present we have not had present any hon. Member on the other side of the House who represents the district whose affairs we are discussing to-night. I believe I am right in saying that there are three hon. Members on the other side who represent the Poor Law area of West Ham, and one would have thought that they would have been in their place, either to back up the Government or to have something to say on the Poor Law administration of the district. I am much indebted to the three previous speakers for the excellent way in which they have put their case, more especially the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). He gave the Committee a number of hard cases, as did also the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence), and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) could have given a similar number of hard cases. I myself, during the last 11 months, have received at least 200 complaints from people living in my own Parliamentary Division or in the West Ham Poor Law area as to the harsh treatment they have received at the hands of the present Poor Law Commissioners. Twelve months ago it would have been impossible for such complaints to be raised in this House. Twelve months ago the old board of guardians was functioning, and the only complaint made against them was that they were a little generous in giving Poor Law relief to large numbers of men and women who were out of work or in
very difficult circumstances. During the course of the Debates on the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, on the Second Reading, during the Committee stage, on Report stage, and also on the Third Reading, the Minister of Health, and the Parliamentary Secretary also, used the words "corruption and mal-administration" on more than one occasion. If any hon. Member cares to look up the Debates he will find that these words were used many times.
9.0 p.m.
Like my hon. Friends on this side of the House I shall be much interested if the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Health himself, or the present Poor Law Commissioners, can supply the Committee with any information as to these mal-practices or corruption, which it is said went on during the time when the old board of guardians was in office. The Poor Law Commissioners have now been in office for 11 months, and I take it for granted that during that time that have made a minute examination of all the books of the old board of guardians, which are now in their possession, and it goes without saying that if there had been any cases of corruption or mal-administration that they would have been brought to the notice of the Minister of Health long before now. The only conclusion to which I can come is that the charges made against the old board of guardians have gone; that there is nothing of the nature of corruption or mal-administration. During the past 11 months I myself, as well as many of my colleagues, have put down questions to the Minister of Health about matters connected with the Poor Law administration in the area of West Ham and on every occasion we have been told that the Minister of Health has absolutely no control at all over the present Poor Law Commissioners. They are appointed in accordance with the Act which was passed by this House and have taken over all the duties and functions of the old board of guardians. If the Minister of Health has no control over the present Poor Law Commissioners, certainly, so far as the citizens of the Poor Law area are concerned, they have no control whatever. We can criticise them, but that is about all that we can do. We can bring harsh cases before the notice of this House from time to time and we can ask questions and get replies from the
Minister of Health, who I take it sends down these questions to the Poor Law Commissioners in order to get their replies. But this is the only thing we can do. Where you have a properly constituted board of guardians you have some control, because every 12 months the citizens of particular wards in the area of West Ham, as in any other Poor Law area, have an opportunity of expressing their appreciation or disapproval of the work done by the board of guardians at the election which then takes place. But in the Poor Law area of West Ham, the whole population, or at any rate the whole of the voters, have been absolutely disfranchised and have no opportunity now of expressing their appreciation or disapproval of the work being done by the present Poor Law Commissioners; and as far as I can see we are never going to get any such opportunity. I think the term of office of these gentlemen expires about the middle of next month. At the moment, I am not certain of the actual date, nor do I know whether they are going to be re-selected. You cannot say that they are to be re-elected; but re-selected. If they are to be re-selected we do not know how long they are going to remain in office. We have been told that later on in the Session the Minister of Health intends to press forward as fast as he can with a measure of Poor Law reform. It has been announced in the House that the Government intend during the next Session to bring forward a Bill which will abolish the present boards of guardians in some, areas, if not in all. That is the information we gather from the Press. I know it may be out of order to discuss the Government's intentions with regard to this legislation, but we are led to understand that this Bill is coming forward and that there has been a compromise in the case of some rural areas that so far as they are concerned they will not be interfered with by the provisions of the Bill.
Another complaint we have to make is that the present Commissioners are not paying their way. I take it for granted that every council in every borough or rural area in this country—they number in all about 1,900—when it borrows money has a sinking fund to pay off principal and interest. I cannot imagine that any local authority would borrow
money without setting up such a sinking fund. I am sure that if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came along to the House next April, when introducing his Budget, and dispensed with his sinking fund, every Member of the House would cry out bitterly against the proposal. The sinking fund that was in operation in the Poor Law area of West Ham has to all intents and purposes been abandoned, though not altogether, for certain sums of money are being paid. I would remind the Committee that on 6th July, 1925, I asked the Minister of Health whether he was prepared to issue a statement showing the amount of loans lent to various boards of guardians in all parts of the country, with the rate of interest charged for each loan, and the amount of principal and interest paid each year. The reply given showed the amount of the loans raised by the various Poor Law authorities, and included a table showing the amount of interest and principal that should be repaid every year.
In this table I find that for the financial year 1925–26 the then Poor Law guardians of West Ham would be called upon to pay in principal and interest £239,644; and for 1926–27—I am not sure whether the table gives the figures to the end of September, 1927, or to the end of the financial year in March—the amount of principal and interest that the present Poor Law Commissioners, or the old board of guardians if it had been functioning, would have been called upon to pay was £328,563, and for 1927–28 £354,256. What we want to know is, what amount of money they have paid for 1925–26 out of that £239,644 and for 1926–27 what they have paid of the £328,513? I asked for that information because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry on one or two occasions has said that the people of West Ham are well satisfied with the present administration, and I think he said that they have saved the ratepayers something like £800,000. If that be true, I would like him to explain how that saving has been made. Personally I should be exceedingly glad if it could be proved that the present Commissioners have saved the ratepayers that amount. If they have done so, the rates ought to have been reduced very much more than they have been. All that they have done is that
on two occasions, once for the half year ending September last, they reduced the Poor Law rate by 2d. in the £ which represents about £29,000. Therefore, a 4d. rate represents very much less than the £800,000 alleged to have been saved.
I shall be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us to-night the amount of money that they have repaid to the Treasury, or to the Goschen Committee, which is the same thing, and we shall then be able to judge whether they have really saved a 4d. rate or not. I am more than convinced that if they had been called upon to pay their way exactly as the old board of guardians would have been called upon to pay their way, this 4d. rate could not have been saved. If the present Commissioners are by good administration saving money for the ratepayers, well and good, but, as has been said, this amount of money has been saved at the expense of the poor people of West Ham. Whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may say, and whatever Sir Alfred Woodgate and his two colleagues may say, we know perfectly well that this amount of money has been saved at the expense of a very large number of poor people in West Ham. Numbers of cases have been given by my hon. Friend; where either the father is in work and is compelled to keep his unemployed son, or where the father is unemployed—there are large numbers of them out of work—and the sons are at work and the unemployed father has to be kept by the son, and so forth. I have had particulars of a case sent to me this morning.

Sir K. WOOD: Is that a case in Poplar?

Mr. W. THORNE: It is the case of a woman of the name of Boswell, who lives in Canning Town, and I do not know whether she is in my division or that of one of my hon. Friends. I know that one thing which will be flung at me to-night is that the present scale of relief was operating when Sir Alfred Woodgate was called upon to function for the Poor Law guardians. That is quite true. I do not dispute that statement, but why was the then board of guardians compelled to cut down the scale of relief? At that time, the maximum relief was 55s. a week for a man, wife and a certain number of
children. The board of guardians was asking for a loan, and the Minister imposed conditions upon them. That gave rise to a quarrel which I had with some of my own friends in the borough, and which perhaps caused a great deal of irritation. I have been howled down on the public platform because I said I thought the guardians would have been wise had they accepted the advice which was given by myself, by the hon. Member for Silvertown, by the hon. Member for Stratford, and also by the hon. Member for East Ham North.
If they had done so, the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act would never have been brought in, because it was aimed at the borough of West Ham. Had they taken our advice, and accepted that loan, the Default Act would never have operated, but that is by the way. About two weeks before the Labour board of guardians were deposed, they had only a few thousand pounds in the bank, and because of the restricted means at their disposal, they had to bring down the scale of relief from 55s. to 40s. 6d. We know the Masonic understandings that are arrived at between the banking authorities and the Ministry of Health. There is no need to send letters to the manager of the bank, telling him how to deal with a situation like that. They can get through on the telephone and give a quiet whisper that the bank ought to do this or ought not to do that, and there is nothing in black and white to show what has been done. The bank refused to allow the guardians any more overdrafts, although they had been charging the guardians a very decent rate of interest. Since the present Poor Law Commissioners began to operate, the bank authorities are making it easy to get overdrafts and I think I am justified in saying that they are allowing the Commissioners more overdrafts at a lower rate of interest than they were allowing the guardians. They are trying to make it appear that the gentlemen who are now operating can do the work better than the board of guardians.
I do not know whether I shall be entitled on this occasion to raise the main question, but this Vote deals with the salary of the Minister, and all boards of guardians and necessitous areas are under his control. For a long time, in fact since 1921, a number of my colleagues and I
have been pegging away at this question and have tried to impress on successive Governments the need for financial relief to the necessitous areas. Several schemes have been presented, including schemes prepared by the borough treasurer of West Ham, and, I think, also one by the City Corporation Poor Law authority. These schemes were placed before the committee which was set up to inquire into the question of the necessitous areas, but they have all been turned down. The present. Minister of Health then concurred in the position which we on this side took up. We have said over and over again that it is unfair for a Poor Law area like West Ham or Bedwelty to have to bear a burden of this kind, and that the burden ought to be a national charge. On 20th June, 1922, I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the then Prime Minister, who was, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and the present Minister of Health, then a humble Member of this House, was one of the deputation. I notice that there is all the difference in the world between a rank and file Member of this House and one who becomes a Minister. Apparently, when a Member becomes a Minister, he may have to eat some of the expressions which he has used as a private Member on one side or the other. This is a part of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health on that occasion:
I do not think I need detain you but a very few minutes. I have been asked to speak on behalf of the boroughs rather than on behalf of the guardians. The case is very much the same from the general point of view. As ratepayers, we are not here to ask for relief in respect of the ordinary demands made on the guardians, but to point out that owing to the quite unprecedented circumstances connected with unemployment the burden is falling very heavily on certain industrial districts. The table appendix shows the number per thousand in receipt of relief. Birmingham has 8 per cent. of the population, and Coventry 6½ per cent. Then in the district between those two towns, about 20 miles away, a little while ago there were only 13 people who had applied for relief to the guardians, and they were able to find them employment by giving them jobs on the roads. Although that district is largely responsible, being on either side of it, it practically escapes any burden. We suggest that this is a national question and has been recognised as a national question by the passing of the
Unemployment Act, and extending it to the whole country, and the burden ought to be more evenly distributed.
Some of the deputation said "Hear, hear!;" to that statement, and the right hon. Gentleman proceeded:
If you make the industrial districts bear the whole of the relief of the unemployed, you are going to increase the rates and the evil must still be remedied. It will cause them greater hardships. Out of some 650 Poor Law areas, only about 200 are seriously affected by this question of relief. That shows how very uneven this distribution is and that it should be spread a little more evenly. I have been asked to present the original petition from Walsall and Smethwick, and a number of other places.
We all said "ditto" to that statement. That is our case. We have been pleading, ever since 1921, for the recognition of this grievance. Hon. Members opposite can say what they like to-night or at any other time as long as they are sitting on those benches, hut there is no remedy for the present state of things, in West Ham or Bedwelty, or Birmingham or any of the large industrial centres throughout the length and breadth of the country unless there is a better method of fixing the incidence of taxation.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member has kept magnificently in order up to now, but he is proceeding to deal with a matter, in connection with which legislation would be necessary.

Mr. THORNE: I will conclude by hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some reply to the questions which have been put to him by the hon. Members for East Ham, North, Stratford and Silvertown and to the question which I have put, which is very important, and see whether he can state the total amount of principal or interest that this present board of guardians have paid. That is the point I want to get at. If he can do that, the Committee will be able to observe to-morrow, when they read the OFFICIAL REPORT, whether the board of guardians are paying their way or otherwise. That is the acid test, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be frank and candid and say whether he can give the information. It will be very interesting to me and my colleagues, because we do not want unduly to criticise the present Poor Law authorities. If they are paying their
way and saving the rates—not at the expense of the poor—and at the same time giving a proper scale of relief—I am quite sure that we shall be satisfied.
I know perfectly well what the Poor Law problem has been in West Ham since I have been in the borough for over 44 years, and it is worse to-day than when I first went there in the latter part of 1882. Personally, I believe it will be very much worse, and I do not see how you are going to get any relief unless by some scheme of finding work for men and women out of employment. The Blanesburgh Report admits that even if you get back to normal trade you are going to have 600,000 men and women on your hands for all time, and places like West Ham will have a decent number of them. Therefore, either this Government or some other Government will have to tackle this very important problem. I am not prepared to admit that this Government, or even a Labour Government, can solve the unemployment problem for the next few years to come, because I am more than ever convinced that this problem cannot be solved under the present commercial system. It is a physical impossibility because of the rapid introduction of scientific machinery and speeding up, for no employer of labour will lay out money for the purchase of any kind of mechanical appliances unless it is going to save wages, which in its turn means saving labour and thereby throwing men and women out of employment. We have got more men out than ever we had in spite of all the rapid methods of production. There are still over 1,000,000 out of work. As long as you have your present system, you can rest assured that you are going to have this very large number out of work, and as a preventive and palliative this Government, or some other Government, will be absolutely compelled to give some kind of relief to Poor Law necessitous areas, like West Ham and other places. The Committee may think I have made a rambling speech, but I have done my level best to put the case forward on behalf of the people of West Ham.

Mr. TEMPLETON: It was noticed a few minutes ago by some of my hon. Friends that I was in travail of speech, and I was reminded by an hon. Member
that West Ham is not in Scotland. I quite realise that West Ham is not in Scotland, and, as a devoted Presbyterian, I humbly thank God for that. For the reason that West Ham is not in Scotland, it is not my intention to say anything at all on the subject of the West Ham Guardians, but rather, as the question before us is much broader and bigger than the consideration of one single part of the King's Dominions, again to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of people in a far more salubrious part of the country than West Ham can possibly be. It must be good, indeed, in midsummer that we should get a breath from the Moray Firth of the fine salt-laden air of that district, after hearing all this talk about West Ham, East Ham, and all the other Hams. Rather more than a year ago I put a question to the Minister of Health in regard to the position of share fishermen of the Moray Firth under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and asked him what was the intent of the Government in order to give these men and their families the benefits of that Measure. I received the reply from him that it was the intention of the Government some time to introduce a Measure to amend the National Health Insurance Act.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid if he wants legislation, the hon. Member is not in order in pursuing this matter. If it be within the discretion and power of the Minister, he can, but, if he wants a Bill, I am afraid he cannot raise it on this occasion.

Mr. TEMPLETON: I do not want to press for a Bill. I am merely recounting the history of my question to which this was the answer. The point I was putting depends very much on this answer being understood. He said that it was the intention of the Government to amend the National Health Insurance Act, because, as I have pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary of Health in various conversations we have had, we have here on the Moray Firth a body of men whose weekly earnings for a vast number of years have not averaged £1 a week and who yet are not employed persons according to the meaning either of the National Health insurance Act or the Act to which I am referring. Yet they are called upon, not only as ordinary taxpayers, to bear
their share of the State's proportion of these benefits, but also as employers—six of them in every herring drifter being the employers of three employed persons—to pay their share of the employer's contribution in regard to the three employed men, all of whom are at least as well off as the share fisherman is himself.
In these circumstances, I should like to ask the Minister what he proposes to do. We have had some years of the worst possible trade when, on account of the socialisation of the means of distribution in Holy Russia! there has been a terrible falling off in their trade and industry in the purchase of the commodity they have to sell. On that account, they have been reduced to very great extremes of poverty, and they have been called upon, under a beneficent Measure, to bear increased taxation in order to provide funds for other people out of their meagre earnings. Much as I admire this Measure and approve of the principle of those who are in work and in health supporting those who are not, it puts these men in a position of having an extra burden placed on their shoulders while they themselves are not in any circumstances able to participate in the benefits which that burden brings.
I should like to press the Minister to consider their case and to make sure that there will be the means of bringing such men under the scope of this Measure, so that they may attain what benefits are going for the money they have paid. I have no wish to say anything in regard to West Ham or to any other question but this one. I have made this one of the things that I have pressed upon the Government and upon the Ministry at all times, in season and out of season. Here you have a body of men who are not grumblers or grousers, nor are they those who call on the Government to do something to make it possible for them to live without working, but who are honest and industrious and hard-working and who have been hardly hit by the politics, not of this country but of another country, and who deserve well of this or any other Government in order that they may be able to earn an honest living and have that which they are paying for given to them in common with the other workers of the country.

Mr. MARCH: I believe we can safely say that the four representatives of East and West Ham have given very good illustrations as to the mismanagement of the Government's representatives on the board of guardians in West Ham, and it is very appetising to hear one of the Government's supporters complaining about their wonderfully exploited Widows and Orphans Pensions Act, which, no doubt, in many instances has done a great deal of good, but there are many anomalies in connection with that Act, one of which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Templeton). In this Vote, I see that there are some expenses connected with that Act. We said, before it was passed by this House, that it was necessary that all widows should be included in that Measure, but the Government thought and said otherwise and were backed up by their supporters, but now, when they begin to have these anomalies brought home to them, it may make them think a little more.
In this Vote also is the question of grants, and we should like the Government to have continued making grants to assist the necessitous areas in the provision of work for able-bodied unemployed men in their districts. The withholding of such grants has meant that the work has been cut off and that larger numbers have been forced to go to the boards of guardians for assistance. I have in my hand a return that has been made by the clerk to the Poplar Board of Guardians, from which we find that for three months at the end of last year no fewer than 200 a month were cut off from unemployment benefit and forced to go to the guardians for assistance. That is a big number, and, the council having completed practically all the work that it was allowed to put in band with assistance from the Government, the only place to which these men can go is the board of guardians. There is a very large number of the men in the district of Poplar, which, like West Ham, is practically a dock area, who are only casual workers, and naturally their wives and families have to depend upon them from day to day. The result is that some 3,000 extra have been receiving relief from the board of guardians as compared with the year before, which naturally keeps up the guardians' expenditure.
I can see, as the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has already said, men with whom I worked years ago gradually deteriorating, getting lower, getting weaker, and getting worse. I can also say, as a Justice of the Peace who is called upon on various occasions to go down to the workhouse under the Poplar Board of Guardians to certify people who have lost their reason, that I know they are increasing in numbers compared with two years ago. They are gradually being driven into the asylums; others are driven into the hospital under the board of guardians; and many of them are being driven into the workhouse itself. Their numbers are increasing month by month in those three institutions, and the cause of it is the long term of unemployment and the action of the Minister in telling boards of guardians that they must cut down their relief. It seems to us that the Minister thinks that the longer these people have been getting assistance from the guardians, the less they can do with, instead of requiring more. As you gradually cut them down, even if it is only by a shilling a week, it makes all the difference to the people in getting little knick-knacks that they could get with that shilling. The result is that they have to deny themselves of something or other, and denying themselves means making themselves weaker and more demoralised than they were before. Their only resort is to go into the work-house or into the hospital, or, if they try to carry on and lose their reason, to get certified to go into the asylum.
Would it not be better, both for the Government and the country generally, to give these people reasonable food and conditions and to keep them out of the asylums? They cost more in the asylum or in the workhouse or in the hospital, and, therefore, we think that the Minister would be well advised to reconsider and review the whole position in those places, like West Ham and Poplar, where they have had these unemployed for so many years. We should very much like to see something done in the way of finding work for these people, but there are many of them who have been on Poor Law relief year in and year out, and there would be some difficulty in their being able to do the work, even if work were found for them, and then we should get the Minister and his supporters saying
that these men do not want work when work is found for them. Mainly, it would be because they had got so weak and so demoralised that they could not do the work if they were called upon to do anything that was laborious at all. To avoid that, the best thing would be to find them useful employment and to pay them reasonable rates of wages. I should like to see that done, and I am sure that the men themselves in the district would prefer to be at work rather than to go either to the Employment Exchange or to the board of guardians. If the Minister can do something in that direction, he will be doing something that will be beneficial to the community at large.

Sir K. WOOD: I propose to-night to deal only with the main topic which has occupied the attention of the Committee, and I will suggest to hon. Members who have raised one or two other points—for instance, in connection with widows' pensions, or, like my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Templeton), who raised a very important point so far as a very excellent body of men are concerned—that we shall be able, I have no doubt, to go into those matters further on Wednesday next, when again the Estimates of my Department will be before the Committee. I have no doubt that on that occasion it will be possible further to explore the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March). The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), who opened this discussion, raised two matters. The first was in connection with the administration of the Blind Persons Act, and the other was in connection with the administration of poor relief in his constituency. I want to say a few words with reference to blind persons, and to assure the Committee and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), who is deeply interested in this matter, that considerable progress is being made in the administration of the Blind Persons Act. If one wanted a test—not by any means the best test, but certainly a test—of the work that is being done, one has only to look at the assistance which has been afforded by the local authorities and by the State. In 1921–22 the local authorities contributed only some £14,671 towards assisting blind persons, whilst this year, 1926–27, it is estimated that no less than £173,828 is to be given by the local authorities alone.
There is the same record of advance in the contributions from the State. In 1921 the State contributed £69,886, whilst in the present year we estimate that a sum of £113,000 will be given. I have not finished when I have made that statement, because one of the best things in connection with the administration of this Act is the great assistance obtained from voluntary sources. I am very glad to say there has been no reduction in the contributions from the many people who do so much to help the blind. During the year 1922–23 the total income of the grant-aided voluntary agencies to which grants are given was £378,535, and in the year 1925–26 that sum had actually risen to £420,473.

Mr. KELLY: Do you suggest that is adequate to deal with this big problem?

Sir K. WOOD: Opinions differ on the question of adequacy, but at any rate in all these cases—contributions from the local authorities and the State, and assistance through voluntary agencies—there has been a very great increase indeed, and to that extent we are progressing.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee to which of these blind societies he allots the sums contained in this Vote and what, are the amounts.

Sir K. WOOD: These sums provided by the State are given to some 130 approved voluntary associations. I could not give the names to-night, but if the hon. and gallant Member is interested in any particular association I shall be glad to give him any information I can. The final point I wish to make about the observation made by the hon. Member for West Ham in this connection is this. I rather gathered from his speech that at some time or other he wanted my Department, so far as the administration of this Act is concerned, to put all these blind persons under the sole supervision of the State—to rely solely on the assistance of the State. I venture to suggest that to do that would be a very great mistake indeed. One of the best features of the administration of the Act is that we are able to cooperate with the many splendid voluntary associations which are carrying on this work.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Member give us the administrative costs of these various associations? We have heard a story that it costs a sovereign to give a sovereign away. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that statement, or otherwise.

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will put a question to me upon that point, and we have the information, I shall be glad to give it to him. I myself have heard of no criticism in this connection so far as the voluntary agencies for the blind are concerned, and I think the hon. Gentleman who occupied my position previously would confirm that. Whatever views we may take about that, and whatever the facts may be, I want to emphasise the point that we ought to be very careful indeed before handing over to the sole care of the State these people, who are deserving of very great help, because very likely we should endanger the voluntary contributions which are given at the present time. I think we are pursuing the right policy in assisting by State contributions properly-approved voluntary associations and leaving the work to a large extent in their hands.
The principal subject which has occupied the time of the Committee to-night has been the administration of Poor Law relief in West Ham. I would like to make some observations upon the statements which have been made by hon. Members opposite without, I venture to say, much reflection on their part and without many facts to assist them. Some of them I can only term as extraordinary statements. What is the present position so far as the administration of Poor Law relief in West Ham is concerned, and what are the intentions of the Minister towards the present administration? That question has just been put to me by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). The legal position is this: Last year, the House passed the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, passed it by a very large majority indeed, after the presentation of a very strong case for interfering with the normal course of local administration in West Ham. Under that Act my right hon. Friend was empowered to appoint guardians in substitution for those who would be disqualified from serving if the terms of the Act came into operation. My right hon.
Friend exercised that power in connection with West Ham, and, I think, two other local authorities. In West Ham he appointed guardians who have been conducting the administration of Poor Law relief in that area. The period of 12 months for which the guardians were [...] the first instance appointed expires on 18th July next. So far from being dissatisfied, as three or four hon. Members opposite appear to have been, with the administration of that area by the newly-appointed guardians, my right hon. Friend, and I think the great majority of hon. Members in this House, and, if I may say so, the great majority of people in West Ham—

Mr. W. THORNE: Rubbish!

Sir K. WOOD: —and, if I may so, the great majority of people who have followed events there, take the view that these guardians have certainly carried out their work with great success, with great benefit to the district, and without doing harm to a single deserving person. Holding that view, my right hon. Friend proposes, and has taken the necessary steps, to continue the newly-appointed guardians for a further term of six months, which is the maximum period of extension allowed by the Act under, I think, Section 2. The grounds upon which the Minister of Health asks for the extension of that period and the further postponement of the election of guardians is that, although good work has been done and great progress has been made, the work of the newly-appointed guardians, in his judgment, in restoring normal conditions in West Ham in the matter of relief, and the restoration of its financial stability, is still incomplete.
For a few minutes I want to justify the decision which has been arrived at, and answer some of the statements which have been made. So far from regarding the appointment of the newly-appointed guardians in West Ham as an attack upon democratic government the position, so far as West Ham is concerned, is that the more one considers the fact the more one must be driven to the conclusion that but for the temporary appointment of these new guardians the ordinary type of democratic government in West Ham would have absolutely failed altogether.
I thought to-night when I heard the statements made by hon. Members opposite, and particularly by the hon. Member who opened the Debate, that they must have very short memories indeed, and they must have entirely forgotten the situation and the state of affairs which existed when the Minister of Health stepped in and asked the House to pass the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act.
What was the position under the old dispensation? The hon Member for Plaistow seems to have forgotten a good many of the things which he used to support in the days of the old dispensation, because at the end of the last financial year for which they were responsible the balance of outstanding loans in West Ham was £1,925,000 or equivalent to a rate of 11s. 7d. in the £. On May 1st, 1926, the number of persons actually in receipt of relief in the West Ham Union was 70,506, or 919 per 10,000 of the population. At that time, the banks had refused to lend any more money to the guardians. The hon. Member for Plaistow told us that someone had to get on to the telephone to advise the banks not to lend the old board of guardians any more money, but that was quite an unnecessary operation. The reason was perfectly plain, and it was because bankruptcy was certainly in sight. What was, in my opinion, almost worse, was not the financial aspect but the grave moral results which had followed the policy of the old West Ham Board of Guardians, because many people had been taught in that district that it was far better to be in receipt of relief than to be at work. At that time there were numerous cases where a man and a family of five were far better off in receipt of relief than the family would have been if the man had been at work at the rates of wages then obtaining. In dealing with the old board of guardians the hon Member for West Ham—

Mr. W. THORNE: Which hon. Member do you mean?

10.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I mean the hon. Member who opened the discussion (Mr. Groves). He stated in dealing with the old guardians that the Minister of Labour had acted very unfairly, and had simply relied on an auditor's report, a copy of which he had 12 months ago. There was a good
deal more than that. Hon. Members representing the West Ham district would no doubt recollect the many admissions which were made by individual members of the West Ham Board of Guardians in public addresses which, so far as their own administration was concerned, admitted that they had failed to realise their duties, and had entirely abused their membership as members of the West Ham Board of Guardians. I only need to remind the Committee, in order to justify the steps taken, of a statement which was made by Mr. Killip, the Vice-Chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians, who is a Labour representative and the agent of the hon. Member for Plaistow, who said:
He must admit that Mr. Ward was correct when he charged the Socialists with using the guardians' relief for political and personal ends. He regretted he had to say that the way in which some of his colleagues were canvassing the unemployed had become such a scandal that something would have to be done to put a stop to it.
At a meeting of the same board of guardians on 10th June last year Mr. Killip said:
Some of the things done in the name of the West Ham Guardians, well the least we can do is to be ashamed of them. When you are elected as guardians you do not go to give out-relief as though you were giving away hand-bills. We have been landed in this position by people who have entirely abused their membership of the Board of Guardians.
Therefore, there is no need to look in any auditor's Report to justify the grounds upon which the Minister of Health acted when he removed the members of the West Ham Board of Guardians from office. I know that is the view of the hon. Member for Plaistow, because I saw an account of a gathering held at the Public Hall, Canning Town, on Saturday night to commemorate the hon. Member's 21st year as a member of Parliament. I will quote a few sentences from the "Daily Herald" in which the Member for Plaistow said:
Criticisms of his political conduct had come from the Communists, and it was the outside pressure of the Communists which had spoiled the previous good work of the West Ham Guardians, with the result that the Commissioners had stepped in.

Mr. W. THORNE: I said that, and I do not withdraw it.

Sir K. WOOD: How anyone can say that the Minister of Health was not right
in removing men from a position of trust and responsibility who, upon their own confession had abused the position in which they had been put by the ratepayers, or how anyone can say that that was not a proper and necessary course for anyone to take passes my comprehension. There is also this to be said, in considering the position of West Ham at the present moment, and whether any alteration should be made in the present position, and whether we should go back to the old state of affairs—

Mr. GROVES: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from the point with which he is now dealing, I would like to ask him whether the charge of the Minister of Health that there was a reign of unabashed corruption is just confined to the statement referred to by the Vice-Chairman of the old board, or whether he himself, on behalf of the Minister of Health, is going to give us some instances of corruption and not rely on the quotations given from the speech of a local gentleman?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not propose to do that. It would not serve any purpose, when the Vice-Chairman of the Board himself, and a Labour representative, gets up and says that the unemployed have been canvassed in such a way that it has become a scandal, and that something must be done to stop it, and says also that the guardians have been using relief for political and personal ends. When a person makes a statement like that—a person who is in a responsible position, and a man who is speaking with some authority—and such a statement comes not from a Tory or Liberal representative but from a Labour man, a Vice-Chairman of the Board and probably the most competent member on that side—when such a man gets up and says that the board of guardians are using relief funds for political and personal ends, I do not think anyone need make much further inquiry into the matter.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is that the only case you can give us?

Mr. DUNNICO: Is not the real point, not the reason why the old guardians were removed, but whether there is any starvation under the existing guardians, because they are not doing their duty?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member would allow me to leave this matter—

Miss LAWRENCE: We do not want, the Parliamentary Secretary to leave this matter, but we want him to give us one solitary case of corruption.

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Lady would forgive me, I would point out again that when a person gets up and says, "My friends are using relief funds for their political and personal ends," there is not much need to inquire further.

Mr. GROVES: Does the Parliamentary Secretary now allege that Mr. Killip, the Vice-Chairman, when he made that statement, was referring to himself and pleaded guilty to such conduct?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I commend Mr. Killip's straightforwardness and honesty. I think his statement can be relied upon. I do not think he was using that, statement in reference to himself, but that he was pleading guilty on be-half of his friends, and I do not think there is much more to be said about it. I want to make this further point. There is no reason, so far as I can make out, for the statement that the attitude of the old guardians, if I may call them so, towards the administration was changed at all. I remember, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow also remembers, the time when my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself had an interview with the old board of guardians, and endeavoured, very patiently indeed, to get them to mend their ways. On one occasion we suggested to them that it would be reasonable that they should give consideration to a further lowering of the scale, and more particularly having regard to the administration of other districts which were in just as difficult a position. They said, "Well, we cannot give a reply now. We will come back and give you a reply in a few days' time. I asked them why it was necessary to delay, and they said, "We must go back and consult the unemployed." It is a fact, as my hon.. Friend opposite knows, that they actually summoned an open-air meeting of the unemployed to consult them as to whether a scale of relief should be refused or not.

Mr. W. THORNE: I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would tell the truth. It is very aggravating to hear statements like that made when the hon. Member knows it is untrue.

Sir K. WOOD: Then that does show some little disregard for the office they held and for which they were responsible. I notice that they have been intervening on occasions in the district in a manner which is certainly not encouraging good administration there. The Mover of the reduction complained of the effort which the new board of guardians, the appointed board of guardians in West Ham, were making to obtain repayment of relief which had been given by way or loan. I should have thought that, when one was satisfied that there was some needy person to whom a loan had been advanced, it was not an improper thing to ask that person to repay a certain sum of money. The newly-appointed board of guardians took the view—a very correct one—that in proper cases it was their clay to obtain repayment of those funds in the best manner they could. This is the sort of thing that happens when this course is being taken. This, again, is a quotation from a paper which is said to represent the views of hon. Members opposite. It is a quotation from Mr. Killip, who seems to have fallen away from the high position he occupied at an earlier stage in the proceedings:
Mr. Killip said that he was advising all those who received a demand for repayment of relief loans to ignore it completely on the ground that the average worker had no reserve funds, even while he worked, out of which he could repay money to which, after all, he had contributed, as a ratepayer.
Even people in work—it did not make the slightest difference. The vice-chairman of the board, and probably the most influential man in Poor Law matters in this area, shows his interest in the state of affairs in the neighbourhood, and his regard for the difficulties of the situation, and for what undoubtedly were the very onerous duties which confronted the newly-appointed board, and advised those who were listening To him, irrespective of whether they had the means to pay, irrespective of whether they were in work or not, that they should decline to make any attempt to repay loans in those circumstances. When you see that sort of thing it is not encouraging, and it does not encourage the majority of Members in this House to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) to get rid of the newly-appointed board of
guardians and I suppose, by some means or other, to get the old board back in their place again. As a matter of fact, the situation, so far as the newly-appointed board are concerned, and what they brought about in West Ham, is a very remarkable, a very interesting, and a very satisfactory one, and I think the best comment on it has been made by a newspaper which is not a Government newspaper, but which is very critical of the Government at the present time. That newspaper published an article at the end of last year, after there had been some opportunity of seeing the work of the newly-appointed guardians in West Ham. The article was headed "The Transformation," and it said this:
Opinions may differ as to the propriety of appointing three unelected and unrepresentative finance experts to supersede the popularly elected West Ham Guardians, but everyone will gasp at the transformation that they have produced. No little child ever intervened in the domestic infelicities of its parents in melodrama with greater effect than have the Government Board of Guardians amid the bewildering tangle of West Ham finance. The deposed Committee of 56 borrowed at the rate of £700,000 a year. The superimposed Committee of three have not yet asked for a loan. Instead, the burdens of the ratepayers have been lightened to the extent of £28,000, which amounts to 2d. in the £ reduction on the rates for the half-year. Admittedly, their success has been due to the fact that they were dealing with a chaotic situation. Extravagance had reigned unchallenged. There was over-staffing"—
I suppose that has some reference to the staffing question that was raised to-night—
excessive payment of relief, and lack of the most elementary inquiries and the most ordinary supervision in its administration. Charges of corruption have been vigorously denied, but not the most vociferous of the guardians' supporters would insist that the administration of the West Ham finances was not decidedly muddle-headed. But the whole proceedings of the committee of three reveal one trenchant fact. If, in the event of certain most disastrous political permutations and commutations, the electorate is ever faced with a choice between Socialism and autocracy, it will have no difficulty in making up its mind which is the more economical and efficient.
That was in the "Daily News" newspaper of the 28th December, 1926, and undoubtedly it sums up in very striking phrases the really wonderful transformation which has taken place in West Ham during the last few months.

Mr. W. THORNE: What did they know about the administration?

Sir K. WOOD: I can tell the Committee this, that there has certainly been a remarkable reduction in pauperism. I have the figures here for the week, for instance, ending on the 27th March, 1926, when the total number of persons in receipt of out-relief was 65,813, and the total amount of outdoor relief given was £27,423. On the 26th March, 1927, the total number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief had actually decreased to 41,054, and the total amount of outdoor relief which had to be expended was reduced to £11,950. I learned to-night, as other Members of the House who have been present have learned, of certain statements, particularly the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of this Vote, of a certain number of cases which he has produced, so far as I am concerned, for the first time. One case, he told the Committee, he discovered in the procession, I think on Saturday or Sunday—

Mr. GROVES: Do not you know when the procession took place?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I do not; I think it must have been on Sunday.

Mr. THORNE: That shows your ignorance of general affairs.

Sir K. WOOD: At any rate, I understand that in the course of this procession the hon. Gentleman came across someone or other who produced a letter to him making some complaint against the West Ham Board of Guardians, and the hon. Gentleman has produced that letter to-night, with five or six others. It is, of course, obviously impossible for me, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, not having allowed me to see those letters before the Debate, to reply to cases of that kind. All I can say is that, if he will send them to me, I will send them to the guardians for investigation.

Mr. GROVES: They have been to them. I would not bring them to you before they had been to the guardians. I always work upwards.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope that next time, when the hon. Member is working upwards, he will begin a little earlier, so that I have them in time for the Debate that takes place. The hon. Member for Plaistow mentioned one or two cases to-night. There is another case in which he has recently interested
himself which, at any rate, was a very good example of the type of case, that is thrown about without investigation so far as the present board of guardians is concerned. I do not want to mention the name to-night. The hon. Member for Plaistow wrote to the newly-appointed West Ham Board of Guardians on the 20th instant calling their attention to the case of a man who lives at Plaistow and the chairman of the board had the case investigated. This is a copy of a letter that has been addressed to the hon. Member.

Mr. THORNE: Am I quoted?

Sir K. WOOD: I am dealing with a case which the hon. Member has sent to the board of guardians.

Mr. THORNE: I have not used it in this House.

Sir K. WOOD: I am giving it as an example of the necessity of careful investigation before these cases are put before the Committee or outside as evidence that the present board of guardians are not dealing with their duties properly.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not rather unfair for the hon. Gentleman to use a case that I have never touched in the House at all? If I have a bad case I do not bring it here. You do not think I am fool enough for that, do you?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member seems unduly apprehensive. I will read the explanation which has been forwarded to him by the chairman of the board of guardians. He says:
This man, aged 41 years, has been continuously on relief since January, 1922. He has served two terms of imprisonment for deserting his wife and children during this period and one term of three months' hard labour as a rogue and a vagabond. Under the previous Board of Guardians, he was specially assisted to the extent of £10 in order to start a business, but within a short time of receiving this money he was again applying for relief. This is also a case in which administrative efforts must he devoted to make the man work. He is at present receiving discretionary relief for short periods.

Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman think—I want to be fair to myself as well as to him—that after I had that information I would touch the man again with a 40-foot pole?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I am sure the hon. Member would not. All I am quoting the letter for is to warn hon. Members that before cases are taken up, they should be verified and checked. The hon. Member who moved this reduction made some extraordinary statement that the newly-appointed board of guardians during the last fortnight had been, as far as I could make out, faking their books and writing against certain entries of people who were in receipt of relief some time ago the words "On lean." He told a tale that was certainly worthy of Edgar Wallace, but I had an opportunity tonight of asking the chairman of the board, who is an interested listener to the Debate, whether there was any truth in the statement that anyone had been at the books and, by his direction or authority, written in those words. He has no knowledge whatever of such a thing. It may surprise, the hon. Member to know that apparently the only person who has been having anything to do with the books during the last few weeks is the Government auditor, and I suppose the hon. Member will not accuse him of writing in the words "On loan."

Mr. GROVES: The hon. Gentleman has either misquoted me or misunderstood what I said. I did not say in the past fortnight. I said up to the past fortnight. That puts a different complexion on it. I was referring to people who had loans, so-called—that is money—during the general strike period.

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that there was no such intention as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. At any rate, the Committee may take it from me, whatever the cause, the newly-appointed board of guardians, as far as I and the Chairman are aware, have not touched the books.

Mr. GROVES: I do not want this Committee to think that I made a statement here that I am going to withdraw. I am willing to prove it. I do not want to take up many moments, but please understand that the books to which I am referring are the books that are in the office of the relieving officer. I know nothing about the Public Auditor or the Chairman seeing this. I do not suppose for a moment that the Chairman knows anything about this. They are what are called the Application or Order
Books. It is an important matter. You are not going to get away like that, when people believe they were granted money by the old guardians. I am prepared to produce in any office the hon. Gentleman likes, in the presence of the Chairman, the persons who granted the relief, that is, the old guardians. And they did not grant it on loan. I am prepared to produce the persons who put in the books since the guardians have been deposed or defunct "on loan." That is a fair offer, is it not?

Sir K. WOOD: I shall be very glad to hear from those gentlemen. What good any person could serve through writing those words "on loan," I do not know.

Mr. GROVES: You know very well, you can recover by law when money is granted by guardians on the pretext of a loan. You have to prove that in the County. Court.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman is now making a very serious statement. The board of guardians of West Ham have by some means or other, or someone on their behalf, or without their authority, has written the words "on loan" in the books on the assumption that they were going to endeavour to get people to repay money granted on loan which in fact had never been so granted.

Mr. GROVES: The hon. Gentleman referred to the agitation in West Ham. The agitation put up was that any man who got money from the guardians on loan ought honourably to repay it, but any person who got money, I understand, which was not on loan should now be compelled to repay it through these words being put in after the old guardians, as such, had died.

Sir K. WOOD: As far as these guardians are concerned, I happen to know of a number of cases which have been taken to Court. In fact, there have only been 121 cases taken to Court, and in each case the guardians have had to prove their case and in every case the order was made on the defendant with costs. So I venture to suggest to the Committee, that while I shall certainly inquire, as far as it lies in my power, into the statement of the hon. Gentleman, there could be no possible motive for any board of officials taking steps of that kind. As a matter of fact, a
very large number of people in West Ham, notwithstanding the very bad advice given to them which I quoted just now, have paid back the money. The actual amount already paid quite voluntarily by a number of people is a sum of over £5,000. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to fake any books or to put words in the books which were improper or which ought not to appear there. As far as the appointment of the board of guardians is concerned, it certainly must be most satisfactory to the great majority of the ratepayers of the district. Borrowing has entirely stopped, and apart from a loan of £300,000 which the appointed guardians had immediately to request to meet the deficiency which they found in the finances of the union no other loan has been raised in respect of the current expenditure of the union. As far as the rate is concerned, there has been a reduction of 4d'. since they came into office.

Mr. THORNE: Tell us about the expenditure.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member put a question to me which I will answer as far as the information I have in my possession goes.

Mr. THORNE: What about the repayment of principal?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member, and the hon. Member for East Ham, North, raised a question about not having to repay principal. The position was fully discussed before the Goschen Committee. It was not a matter for the Minister of Health. The guardians represented to the Goschen Committee that they had succeeded in reducing their expenditure on relief to such an extent that they would be able, without recourse to further borrowing, to meet the current expenditure on relief and administration and on the interest on the outstanding loans, and to make some provision for a working balance, but that they would, in order to avoid further borrowing, require some accommodation in the matter of principal repayments. The Committee fully considered the matter and agreed to postpone, temporarily, two instalments of principal, due at September, 1926, and March, 1927, and to discuss further with the guardians the payments to be made on account of principal after that date.
Repayment of principal will be made in September, 1927, of over £80,000, and the provision for repayment during the remaining half year to March, 1928, will be discussed with the guardians before the Budget of that half year is drawn up.

Mr. THORNE: The hon. Member has not given me the difference between what they should have paid and what they have paid.

Sir K. WOOD: I have given the hon. Member all the information I have. There are few boards of guardians of whom it can be said, as it can be said of the newly appointed board of guardians for West Ham, that the annual reduction in the expenditure of the union has reached a figure of over £800,000. I wish every board of guardians could do equally as well in other parts of the country. This Act, although there has been a good deal of complaint about it this afternoon, has certainly proved of great assistance in Poor Law administration throughout the country generally. I remember saying on the Second Reading of the Bill that, in my judgment, this Act would not have to be put into force in very many cases. I think it has only had to be put into force in two or three cases. This Act has undoubtedly prevented any great abuse of local administration. A little time ago, I saw a report of the proceedings of the Bermondsey Board of Guardians, and a statement made by the chairman to a deputation which had made further demands upon the union, with which they were not prepared to comply. The chairman of the board, who is a Labour member, and the board is a Labour board, in reply to the demand said—this shows that this Act has been of some use in places other than West Ham—that:
The Board's accounts already show a deficit of over £75,000. An increase of the Bermondsey scale would necessitate an application to the Minister of Health, and he felt sure that instead of sanctioning it the Minister would gladly seize the opportunity of superseding the Bermondsey Board.
The guardians declined to accede to the demand. I suggest to the Committee that when they come to give a vote to-night on this question, which has been particularly related to West Ham, they will consider that no reduction was ever less justified than the one proposed. If
anybody has earned the commendation and the thanks of this Committee, and of the public of West Ham generally, it is the newly appointed Poor Law Commissioners, and I hope the Committee will agree that my right hon. Friend is acting wisely in extending their term for another period of six months in the hope that still further economies will be achieved, without interfering or working harshly in the case of any single deserving individual.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the hon. Member kindly answer the two specific cases I gave him, as to which he has said nothing?

Sir K. WOOD: I did not reply to these cases because I have already communicated with the hon. Member in writing and given her a reply. The West Ham Board of Guardians have to pay attention to the present condition of the law, just as any other board of guardians, and they are not permitted, in giving relief, to ignore contributions which come from outside sources unless they are specially exempted by Act of Parliament. There are only two exceptions, one in relation to Friendly Societies, and the other is another case specially provided for by Parliament. Except in these two cases every board of guardians has to have regard to the income derived by the family. The board of guardians are no doubt acting perfectly within the law. They do not make the law, they are fulfilling the law as it is at present.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is it the law to make brother keep brother?

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have not bad to-night a reply to the arguments put forward but a rehash of the case put before this House when the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act was introduced. The Parliamentary Secretary is relying on the docile majority behind him instead of on argument. He knows perfectly well that it does not much matter what he says. He has a majority of 200 to support him. This vote is not a vote against the old board of guardians or for the new board of guardians, it is a vote against the Government; that is what we intend it to be. Early in the Debate the hon. Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence) said that she was not going to make any appeal to the Minister; she
did not believe he was ever moved by pity or humanity. That is perfectly true. To the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary, as well as the large mass of hon. Members on the other side, to be poor is to be a criminal. On both sides of the House we agree that poverty is a crime. We believe that poverty is a crime, but right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to think that the individual pauper is a criminal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It is true. The action of the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary in their legislation and their administration goes to prove that they have a contempt for the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] Hon. Members opposite may smile, but it is true. They are prepared to see the laws of this land administered against the poor in a way against which they would revolt if they were so administered against themselves. The hon. Lady who spoke said she wished she had eloquence to move the Committee. No eloquence can move hon. Members opposite. Provided it can be shown that the rates have been saved and that, artificially, pauperism has been reduced, hon. Members opposite will be quite happy. We are told, in all seriousness, I presume, that West Ham is satisfied with its appointed guardians. Time will prove. The Minister of Health has extended their lease of life to the maximum allowed under the Act—for a further six months. At the end of that time, there will have to be a re-election. I hope the three appointed guardians will then face the ratepayers. I am prepared to prophesy now that, faced with the electors who are to-day said to be satisfied, they would be rejected with enormous majorities against them.
The chief part of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary has been devoted to recounting ancient history, and to repeated references to Mr. Bert Killip, who apparently has two characters, when he rightly protests against the policy of certain members of the Board, and when he stands for the representatives of tħe Board. The hon. Gentleman quotes Mr. Killip with sympathy and gives him his support on the one hand, but when he takes a stand against the repayment of relief by men who on full wages are earning less than
£2 per week, he earns the criticism of the hon. Gentleman. But the question before the Committee is not the statements of Mr. Killip. The question before the Committee is the administration by the appointed guardians set in authority over the people of West Ham without their approval by the Minister of Health. We have not had a complete defence of their administration. We have had served up again—we know off by heart now what Mr. Killip said—the old statements that were used against the old board of guardians. That does not matter; they are dead. What we should have liked to have heard more of was a defence of the new board of guardians. One argument the Parliamentary Secretary adduced. It was that pauperism had been reduced. Is that a serious claim? Pauperism, official pauperism, can be reduced just as easily as official unemployment. Pauperism in this country, if all boards of guardians were as flinty-hearted as the Guardians of West Ham, could be reduced very substantially, but the number of the suffering poor would remain the same.
There may have been cases of extravagance—it is admitted—but this reduction of pauperism means that a proportion of people who had been legitimately in receipt of out-relief are to-day being denied it. What the appointed guardians are doing is to put the cost of pauperism on the community as a whole, in debilitation, in impaired health, in disease and death, so that the hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us that there has been a saving of £800,000. It is false economy. It is no saving. If the three guardians are to-day allowing a single child in West Ham to suffer in health because of their administration, their £800,000 saving, so far as I am concerned, does not matter a jot. The pride of the Minister is that they have reduced the rates in West Ham. They have done so by reducing the official figure of pauperism—that is by cutting off the relief given to people who had it before, a large number of whom, I earnestly believe, are still entitled to it. They have done so by not honouring the contractual obligations of the board of guardians to the Goschen Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary draws a distinction between taking a loan and not paying what you owe. I suggest they are both the same thing and that, were the
old board of guardians still in existence, they would presumably have been borrowing some money, but they would have been repaying to some extent capital and interest just as in the last half-year of Their operations they repaid £127,297. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much did they borrow?"] I am not saying they did not borrow. [Laughter.] I wish hon. Gentlemen would not be so frivolous on a serious matter. I do not suppose I shall be able to make them understand my argument, but I will try to do so, if they will allow me. Had the old board of guardians continued they would probably have been borrowing money. [HON. MEMBERS: "More money!"] Of course they would be borrowing money in addition to the amount they had already borrowed, but the first act of the new guardians was to borrow £300,000.
The old board of guardians would however have paid back some of the capital and interest due under the agreement with the Goschen Committee. They would have borrowed money just as the new guardians did but in order to achieve this extraordinary result of a reduction of 4d. in the rates, the new guardians went cap in hand to the Goschen Committee instead of paying their just debts and were permitted to postpone those debts. That is obviously the equivalent of a loan, so that the net result of the operations of this precious body of autocrats is that they have borrowed money, that they have not paid what they ought to have paid and that they have reduced pauperism by increasing suffering among the people. A number of cases have been brought before the Committee. All that the Parliamentary Secretary did by way of reply was to treat rather frivolously my hon. Friend's reference to the case of a man he saw yesterday and a case, not brought before the House by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne), but one on which, no doubt, there may have been something to be said, and in regard to which my hon. Friend thought at least there was a prima facie case which he was entitled to bring up before the board of guardians. How many times have hon. Members opposite brought prima facie cases before the Minister of Pensions and found out that they were not good cases to which they could give support and have presumably let them drop? That
is the kind of case for which my hon. Friend was pilloried by the Parliamentary Secretary. But the Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to a number of cases. What he said was that it was very important that the facts should be verified. There were three cases, two of them cases of the children or ex-service men where the facts were admitted. Here, as my hon. Friend informed the House, is the letter signed by the Parliamentary Secretary himself, which admits that the facts are substantially correct.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member read what I said at the conclusion of the letter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly, the letter says:
These inquiries show that the facts stated in the note are, at any rate, substantially correct "—
and it goes on at the end of the letter to say:
This decision is one within the legal discretion of the guardians, and the Minister, even if he desired to do so, has no authority to require the decision to be reconsidered.
Let me give some cases. There are two cases in regard to which the Parliamentary Secretary had no reply. He has told us, with the intention of justifying the new board of guardians, that they have reduced pauperism and saved money and reduced the rates by 4d. in the £ The first case is that of a man married to a war widow, and between them there are six children, four of them stepchildren of the man, and two of them children of the second marriage. They are paying a rent of 13s. 3½d. per week, and living in two, or at the most three, rooms—or they were. Because of their poverty, they were driven to sub-let a room, for which they get 4s. 6d., and the net rent they have to pay is 8s. 9½d. per week. These step-children have a war pension amounting in the aggregate to 23s. 6d. per week. It was the intention of Parliament that that money should be devoted to those children and should not be diverted to any other purpose, whatever. Previously the pensions of those children were not taken into account by the board of guardians, and quite rightly. There is nobody in this House who dare get up and say they should have taken it into account. Is there anybody who is prepared to say it?

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: Yes, I will.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Thank you very much. There is one hon. Member in the House who believes that War pensions granted to the children of deceased soldiers should be used for other purposes than the maintenance of the children. I should be glad if other Members would make the same admission. Previously these pensions had not been taken into account, and the step-father received in Poor Law relief £1 in kind and 5s. in money. That was not extravagant, but that, under the new régime, has been reduced to 8s. in kind and 5s. in money. There is another case, equally bad.

Mr. REMER: Read the letter.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly.
This decision is one within the legal discretion of the guardians, and the Minister, even if he desired to do so, has no authority to require the decision to be reconsidered.

Mr. REMER: I understand that that is an extract. Will the hon. Member read the whole letter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will if the hon. Member wishes it, but there is nothing more in it. I have read the last sentence. It is perfectly true that it is within the discretion of the board of guardians to give relief on a scale as low as this, but the right hon. Gentleman has to remember that he introduced the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill, aimed primarily at this particular board,

on the ground, first, that they were corrupt and, secondly, that they were over-generous, and the Debates in this House from that side and the decision of the majority of the Government supporters in this House were the marching orders to the new boards of guardians, who were in honour bound to make extensive economies, at whatever cost to the poor. I am not surprised that the Act was extended to other two boards of guardians. The Parliamentary Secretary said the Act had not been put into operation in many cases, but that it had had its uses. It had terrified other boards of guardians, who, fearing suppression, had been led to economise, also at the expense of the poor. I am not surprised that that should be the effect of this Act. It was intended to have that effect. It was intended, as I pointed out on Second Reading, as an economy Measure. It has succeeded in terms of finance, but it is going to cost the country an infinite expenditure in terms of misery and in terms of disease. If these are the fruits of the victory gained by hon. Members opposite in this Act, they are fruits to which they are welcome.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,943,493, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 235.

Division No. 213.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon, Joseph M.
Viant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr Whiteley and Mr. A. Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Albery, Irving James
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pennefather, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Lieut. -Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pilcher, G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain W.
Harland, A.
Preston, William


Briscoe, Richard George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Burman, J. B
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rye, F. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Salmon, Major I.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Heneage, Lieut. -Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandon, Lord


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S)
Hilton, Cecil
Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Lieut. -Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George
Hudson, R S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stanley, Lieut. -Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Strauss, E. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jacob, A. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Templeton, W. P.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Thom, Lt. -Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lamb, J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Drewe, C.
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elveden, Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Malone, Major P. B.
Withers, John James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gates, Percy
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Major Cope.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. SCURR: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be Reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock